American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436690]Here is one.

[URL]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/31/union-busting-tacticsondisplayatduluthgaplant.html[/URL]

I remember some that happened in the past, but I can not remember the company names.

Yes, the Printers Union lost many jobs because of Outsourcing.

Why pay Union wages, if you can pay someone $1 or $2 a day to do the work, with no health care benefits.

Oh yes, you mean the 8 stories that collapsed killing the textile workers. Remember the illustration I posted?[/QUOTE]Now you're quoting Aljazeera as a news source? Jajajajaja!

Anyway, the article you referred to is titled "[I]Workers allege union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

That's not exactly the same as "[I]Dept. Of Justice attorneys secured a conviction for union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

I challenged you "[I]to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.[/I]"

What you presented was "[I]Allegations made by workers to Aljazeera reporters[/I]".

Do you see the difference?

Once again, you need to up your game because there aren't very many LIV (Low Information Voters) on this website, so the usual liberal drivel won't fly.

Thanks,

Jax.

Mongers-.

The right wing fascists on this forum, led by Jackson himself, bashed the auto bailouts and were willing to let both GM and Chrysler be liquidated and allow millions of workers to lose their jobs. GM is now sitting on a $26 billion cash pile and Chrysler is looking at a $10 billion valuation for its soon to come IPO; the US Treasury will liquidate its final 2% of GM holdings before year end. The entire US auto industry has surpassed pre-crisis sales figures and are making genuinely competitive vehicles; if Jackson and his fascist lackies (Punter, Toyman, Sidney, etc) had their way only Ford would exist millions of well-paid workers would have footholds in the fast food and retail industries earning minimum wage.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/treasury-plans-to-exit-general-motors-investment-by-year-end-1-.html[/URL]

This is what anti union jobs lead to.

[url]http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8zb_Ao9SNiwAmrRXNyoA?p=building+colapses+in+banladesh&fr=yfp-t-900&fr2=piv-web[/url]

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/bangladesh-building-collapse-fire-factory_n_3174732.html[/URL]

[URL]http://accountingfuture.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/how-outsourcing-has-affected-job-markets/[/URL]

[URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/08/29/top-india-stories-from-wsj-skidding-rupee-endangers-economy-outsourcing-firms-cry-foul-on-bill-building-collapses-kill-11/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/a-broken-outsourcing-model.html?_r=0[/URL]

[URL]http://outsourcingandthedollar.blogspot.com/[/URL]

[URL]http://science.time.com/2013/04/29/fast-cheap-dead-shopping-and-the-bangladesh-factory-collapse/[/URL]

Jackson have ever really did {done} a physical days work in your life? Do you know what a shovel is?

[QUOTE=Jackson;436691]Now you're quoting Aljazeera as a news source? Jajajajaja!

Anyway, the article you referred to is titled "[I]Workers allege union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

That's not exactly the same as "[I]Dept. Of Justice attorneys secured a conviction for union busting at government contractor in Georgia[/I]".

I challenged you "[I]to find one example in the past 10 years where a federal investigation resulted in a conviction in a case where company employees were intimidated into refraining from voting in a unionization vote by agents of the company.[/I]"

What you presented was "[I]Allegations made by workers to Aljazeera reporters[/I]".

Do you see the difference?

Once again, you need to up your game because there aren't very many LIV (Low Information Voters) on this website, so the usual liberal drivel won't fly.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

WT, explain this: CGI Federal is the USA Arm of a Canadian company.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436692]Mongers-.

The right wing fascists on this forum, led by Jackson himself, bashed the auto bailouts and were willing to let both GM and Chrysler be liquidated and allow millions of workers to lose their jobs. GM is now sitting on a $26 billion cash pile and Chrysler is looking at a $10 billion valuation for its soon to come IPO; the US Treasury will liquidate its final 2% of GM holdings before year end. The entire US auto industry has surpassed pre-crisis sales figures and are making genuinely competitive vehicles; if Jackson and his fascist lackies (Punter, Toyman, Sidney, etc) had their way only Ford would exist millions of well-paid workers would have footholds in the fast food and retail industries earning minimum wage.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/treasury-plans-to-exit-general-motors-investment-by-year-end-1-.html[/URL][/QUOTE]More liberal hyperbole, designed to sway the emotions of the LIV.

The truth is that the demand for cars would still exist, and thus the need for the factories and their workers would still exist, and thus ultimately the only difference would have been the company name on the side of the building.

Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity and then give it to the unions, but he needed their support regardless of what was legally correct.

You liberals need to up your game here because the drivel you usually pitch to the LIV's just isn't going to work in this intellectually elevated venue.

Thanks,

Jax.

I love Christmas lights! They remind me of the people who voted for Obama.

They all hang together; half of them don't work, and and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!

Tres3.

You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436705]More liberal hyperbole, designed to sway the emotions of the LIV.

The truth is that the demand for cars would still exist, and thus the need for the factories and their workers would still exist, and thus ultimately the only difference would have been the company name on the side of the building.

Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity and then give it to the unions, but he needed their support regardless of what was legally correct.

You liberals need to up your game here because the drivel you usually pitch to the LIV's just isn't going to work in this intellectually elevated venue.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]You're right. I can't PROVE that my scenario would have come to fruition, any more than you can PROVE that it wouldn't have happened, but the history of the human race has repeatedly and consistently PROVEN that entrepreneurs will step in and meet any unfilled market demand.

However, it's possible that you have no faith in the free market system.

BTW, if your belief that "[I]Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees.[/I]" was true (which you also can't PROVE), then why are Japanese, German and other foreign car makers rushing to build auto factories in the USA, abet in non-union "Right to Work" states?

Thanks,

Jax

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing to liberals is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster![/size][/B]

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]Congratulations to all you Political pundits for not parsing the piss out of this subject.

I enjoyed your Executive Summaries posted to the point.

Its really nice not to have to wade through countless boxes of unconnected thoughts.

Jackpot.

I had to post this, as I thought it was kind of funny (actually bust a gut at the last paragraph). Jackson and I just recently had a discussion about this, where we turned out we were arguing the same basic premise, just to different degrees.

[QUOTE]
Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he’s “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Well, apart from his signature health-care policy. That’s a mystery to him. “I was not informed directly that the website would not be working,” he told us. The buck stops with something called “the executive branch,” which is apparently nothing to do with him. As evidence that he was entirely out of the loop, he offered this:

Had I been I informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, “Boy, this is going to be great.” You know, I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, “This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity,” a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.

Ooooo-kay. So, if I follow correctly, the smartest president ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he’s not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he’s not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they’re in for. But he is smart enough to know that he’s not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he’d already been informed that it doesn’t work. So he’s smart enough to know that if he’d known what he didn’t know he’d know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country’s in the very best of hands.
[/QUOTE]This is from an article ([URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364093/thus-spake-obama-mark-steyn[/URL]) accusing Obama of acting like a king.

In my opinion, where JFK was associated with King Arthur and Camelot, the same was tried with Obama but it seems to me he comes across as more King John Lackland of England, famous for having had the Magna Carta forced on him and such a bad king (lost land to France, was cruel and vindictive in his rule, etc) there was never another named John, as I understand.

King Obama Lackplan of America.

[QUOTE=Tres3;436706]I love Christmas lights! They remind me of the people who voted for Obama.

They all hang together; half of them don't work, and and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!

Tres3.[/QUOTE]So you are claiming that you are the Silver Star atop the Christmas tree? Too many people wearing a big Ego medallion on their chest around here just because they can spell a few words.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436707]You are the only one here lacking facts; you are speculating about what a possible outcome MIGHT have been and have no actual empirical evidence to back up anything you are claiming. The FACT is that both GM and Chrysler were BANKRUPT, were saved from liquidation (meaning EXISTING jobs and EXISTING factories continued to EXIST) and today are earning BILLIONS. The most likely outcome of allowing GM and Chrysler to implode is that Japanese automakers would have absorbed the additional demand for cars through their own factories and employees. Regarding what was "legally correct", the entire TARP program was with no precedent and on dubious legal ground before it was invented on the fly and implemented to stop the US economy from grinding to a halt.[/QUOTE]Far from being a right-wing fascist myself, I am rather a true Libertarian who has some grounding in a whole lot of activities ranging from ditch digging to designing / drafting buildings, to erecting large buildings as a superintendent, to being a programmer, to managing software development for the world's largest offshore drilling company and finally running my own businesses, and having had a failure am in the middle of rebuilding. For the last few years I have been studying economic concepts of both the Austrian and Keynesian schools. While not a highly-learned student of economics, I do see in this point about the distribution of resources what seems to me to be a typical misunderstanding of what all this means.

If there is a demand for something, the resources WILL be recovered in some fashion. This isn't some might-have-been; even Keynesians believe this to some extent, they simply think it's a good idea to encourage the economy to do it quicker than natural, and in the direction they want (which, of course, almost always leads to bubbles).

Austrians believe that you will always pay for your tampering of the market. They believe that the resources will be naturally recovered and redistributed by market forces and less damage will be done as a result, both because an artificial bubble made by politician's whimsical desires doesn't lead a lot of consumers or investors into the wrong sort of thing (I.e., reduces risk to begin with) and doesn't leave the economy weak as a result of messing with chaotic forces that no one has yet been able to predict and really plan for, limiting future growth until everything is in harmony again.

The reason free market believers have problems with bailing out private industry is because it is only making a bad position worse and will never get better. The auto-industry has been hampered long past necessity by unions. The demands made by collective bargaining have distorted that market in the US and made it very vulnerable to competition from the outside. There are certainly other issues, such as bad management and in some cases bad quality, etc. But at the end of the day, the government propping up private industry is doing nothing but taking money from the economy and using it to continue to prop up bad business and keep resources locked up in poorly-performing economic situations.

If the businesses failed, they would certainly have been redistributed back into the economy and eventually recovered. No might-have-been. I don't think any real economists actually doubt that. But the problem is, those resources may not have been redistributed back into Detroit and other places that have high labor and other costs due to the high influence of collective bargaining. That is where everyone freaks out. My god, all those people may not have had jobs!

But it was their choice! In this day and age, collective bargaining is ridiculous. A job is worth what a job is worth. I don't have a problem if a particular state has a belief that collective bargaining is cool and gets great salaries, but don't expect me, as a taxpayer, to want to contribute to that because the only way they can survive long term with ridiculous salaries and benefits is for the government to help them out at some point. It's not my problem that in my opinion they are way overpaid, and how dare anyone tell me that I should support their artificially-high prices.

If the resources are released and Japanese and German automakers want to by up tools and equipment and other such things and move to other states where collective bargaining is not a problem (considering that foreign automakers already have a number of factories in the US, I can't imagine why they would try to export cars at a higher price than consumers want to pay), I say more power to them. The people in other states will get the benefit of the new jobs, I won't have to bail out a bunch of people who think they are entitled to artificial wage rates, and maybe it will force those people where the jobs were to innovate in some fashion to bring jobs back into their state instead of depending on the other taxpayers of the same country to keep them in their little idealic fantasy.

Let the resources go to those who deserve them by taking care of the resources and increasing their value by using labor and the ingenuity of those workers and not expecting everyone else to suffer for their artificially high demands.

Unfortunately, propping them up has extended the problem and it will just get even worse the next time.

Propping up ANYTHING (be it banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, or the restaurant around the corner) is doing nothing more than delaying the problem.

I think politicians should adopt an item from the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Don't just read the words, understand why the Hippocratic Oath contains those words and how they apply to a doctor meddling with his patient.

From the NY Times, Timothy Egan, November 21,2013.(selected).

"The South is once again committed to take a backward path. By refusing to expand health care to the working poor through Medicaid, most of the Confederacy is keeping millions of its own citizens in poverty and poor health. They are dooming themselves further, as the Left Behind States.

And they are doing it out spite(can you believe that, just because of Obama). Most of the South is defiant--their own Lost Cause of the 21st century.

And so the South continue their incestous and self destructive ways. In a world of their own making. But there will be an awakening one day, hope it won't be too late.

[QUOTE]The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 22% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22.[/QUOTE]The only thing dropping faster than Obamas poll numbers is the number of insured people.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436705]Of course, Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to strip the GM bondholders of their equity [/QUOTE]Bondholders don't have equity. They are creditors. And THAT is a fact.