Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Romney appraisal Options · View
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:34:12 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Do you even listen to the words in his speeches? or do you just sit there with google-eyes, hard nipples and wet panties watching his lips move? When he isn't blaming Bush or uncooperative Republicans, he's blaming Wall Street and bankers and lecturing about how we need more sacrifice from those who fly in corporate jets. Wake up and smell the sugar-coated horse shit he's feeding you.



I've listened to his speeches and can't find any examples of his demonizing corporations or anyone else. Maybe because my panties are too wet to listen well. Perhaps you could provide some examples.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:40:28 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:
1ball wrote: The company is now out of the control of its rightful owners and is a cash cow for past and current and future UAW members. Agreed?



So that's a yes?


That's a no, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:09:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
That's a no,


His UAW cronies were protected at the expense of shareholders. Agreed?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:25:07 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
For the third time, the UAW has no control over GM, so no, the company is not a "cash cow" for that union. Even if the trust was union-controlled, and even if they in turn acted as nefarious agents for labor in the board meetings, both of which require big assumptions that run contrary to any actual evidence, that's still only 17% of the company's ownership. So, not agreed. Can you post the proof of this undue union protection you reference, or evidence that the company is a "cash cow" for the UAW? Id like to see it; maybe you're right. If not, then enjoy your conspiracy.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:36:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


I've listened to his speeches and can't find any examples of his demonizing corporations or anyone else.


But I'll bet you salivate in all the right places.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:35:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I wrote: His UAW cronies were protected at the expense of shareholders. Agreed?

LadyX wrote:
For the third time, the UAW has no control over GM, so no, the company is not a "cash cow" for that union. Even if the trust was union-controlled, and even if they in turn acted as nefarious agents for labor in the board meetings, both of which require big assumptions that run contrary to any actual evidence, that's still only 17% of the company's ownership. So, not agreed.


You're being nitpicky over who holds the title to the shares. The UAW exercised their control over the settlement via their influence over him. Their wants were placed above the shareholders' rights as a condition of the bailout. Shareholders got squeezed out by hand-waving, smoke and mirrors. Agreed?

Quote:
Can you post the proof of this undue union protection you reference,


Can you post proof that the protection received by the UAW was due?

Quote:
or evidence that the company is a "cash cow" for the UAW? Id like to see it; maybe you're right. If not, then enjoy your conspiracy.


By your own admission, a substantial chunk of the company was transferred from shareholders and allocated to the purpose of generating income to cover health care expenses of UAW members. Correct?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:43:27 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
All I'm asking for are citations for this wrongful transfer that you're referring to, if it's anything more than an opinion. Whether something is "due" or not is subjective and unprovable, and you're the one that brought it up.

To your last question: did equity get transferred to the VEBA trust as one component of the settlement? Yes, correct.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:17:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I asked: Can you post proof that the protection received by the UAW was due?

LadyX wrote:
All I'm asking for are citations for this wrongful transfer that you're referring to, if it's anything more than an opinion. Whether something is "due" or not is subjective and unprovable, and you're the one that brought it up.


You weren't aware that holders of pre-bankruptcy common shares got zero from the settlement? No cash and no shares of the restructured company? Their ownership interest just evaporated. Somehow that news didn't reach you?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:18:29 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Link? I'd like to know about it.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:01:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Link? I'd like to know about it.


I'm not going to send you my father's documents. He had 200 shares. All he got out of the settlement was a letter saying that his shares were being swept because they weren't even worth $.01.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:33:52 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
All I'm asking for are citations for this wrongful transfer that you're referring to, if it's anything more than an opinion. Whether something is "due" or not is subjective and unprovable, and you're the one that brought it up.

To your last question: did equity get transferred to the VEBA trust as one component of the settlement? Yes, correct.


1ball isn't going to give you links or any sort of evidence of anything. His facts are obviously pulled straight from his ass, not based in anything that a normal person would think of as reality. He has consistently refused to back any of his opinions with facts. He has knee jerk reactions based on his time addiction to right wing talk radio and Fox news. He is a troll, nothing more.

He doesn't provide proof for his statements because he doesn't have any. He makes things up to suit his opinions as he goes.
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:34:37 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


But I'll bet you salivate in all the right places.


You can't find even one example can you? Not even one. Goodbye troll.
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:28:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Lady X

CoopsRuthie

Heres your link;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-01-24-gm-bankruptcy_N.htm

I have a bad feeling it won't be enough or the USA TODAY paper is an obvious "right-wing" rag thats just on the side of the "greedy rich Republican investor". I sincerely hope I'm wrong .

Lady X you wanted "just one link" there it is, untolled BILLIONS shot to hell and retirees that invested a large portion of their lifes work in the good 'ol "blue-chip stock of G.M." left with stock brokers telling them they no longer have a retirement account and should start looking for some work. Brought to you by the U.S. government, owned and operated by Barak Obama.

CoopsRuthie, I distinctly remember you saying that when I reffered to you as one of Stalin's "Useful idiots" you charged me with name calling...I guess "troll" doesn't count.
Look forward to not talking to you again in the future.



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:48:04 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
Lady X

CoopsRuthie

Heres your link;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-01-24-gm-bankruptcy_N.htm

I have a bad feeling it won't be enough or the USA TODAY paper is an obvious "right-wing" rag thats just on the side of the "greedy rich Republican investor". I sincerely hope I'm wrong .

Lady X you wanted "just one link" there it is, untolled BILLIONS shot to hell and retirees that invested a large portion of their lifes work in the good 'ol "blue-chip stock of G.M." left with stock brokers telling them they no longer have a retirement account and should start looking for some work. Brought to you by the U.S. government, owned and operated by Barak Obama.

CoopsRuthie, I distinctly remember you saying that when I reffered to you as one of Stalin's "Useful idiots" you charged me with name calling...I guess "troll" doesn't count.
Look forward to not talking to you again in the future.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:01:51 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,465
Location: Cakeland, United States
1ball wrote:


I'm not going to send you my father's documents. He had 200 shares. All he got out of the settlement was a letter saying that his shares were being swept because they weren't even worth $.01.


So blame the government and the employees instead of the corporate raiding upper management thieves who plundered the company.

Brilliant!

I bet you thought that Wall Street - TooBigToFail plan of Bush's administration was a dandy shell game too?

How much money was doled out without strings attached, prior to January 20, 2009?

Surely Mr Maxwell can find us a reliable link.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:05:15 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
Lady X

CoopsRuthie

Heres your link;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-01-24-gm-bankruptcy_N.htm

I have a bad feeling it won't be enough or the USA TODAY paper is an obvious "right-wing" rag thats just on the side of the "greedy rich Republican investor". I sincerely hope I'm wrong .

Lady X you wanted "just one link" there it is, untolled BILLIONS shot to hell and retirees that invested a large portion of their lifes work in the good 'ol "blue-chip stock of G.M." left with stock brokers telling them they no longer have a retirement account and should start looking for some work. Brought to you by the U.S. government, owned and operated by Barak Obama.

CoopsRuthie, I distinctly remember you saying that when I reffered to you as one of Stalin's "Useful idiots" you charged me with name calling...I guess "troll" doesn't count.
Look forward to not talking to you again in the future.



Thanks, Robin. How does this differ from other bankruptcies? Do stocks usually retain value after a company files for bankruptcy, breaks up, and gets reconstituted as a new company?
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:35:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Always something new to learn on these forums. It would definitely be hard to run a company as big as GM without the workers who are trained at the various processes the company is engaged in. Not to mention that you can't just cut wages if they have a collectively bargained contract in place.

As soon as a company files for bankruptcy protection, the creditors (which the union would be) have more rights than the owners, as the act of filing for bankruptcy protection is an admission by the owners that they have failed. If a solution can be worked out where all debts can be paid, or at least renegotiated, the owners can retain control. Otherwise, control is handed to someone who can pay the creditors, or in severe cases, assets are sold off and the proceeds divided among the secured, then unsecured, creditors.
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:42:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
To me it's different because after all the original shareholder were told to "kiss it", the government comes in with taxpayer money, bails the company an the union out of their problem, when the dust settles the taxpayer is still owed billions, the union has 17% of the shares in a company they never purchased a single stock and the original shareholders get nothing.

It seems very different to me. Maybe if the government(Obama) had not spent taxpayer money it would be the same as any other bankruptcy. But it's not, the union made out, ma and pa America got screwed out of their retirement.

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:48:26 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
So, in other words, the outcome of worthless shares occur in other bankruptcies as well. Which means that those left with their investments wiped away is a separate issue from the government's investment, if I understand you correctly.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:54:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


So... can you provide any quotes where he's "demonized" any corporation?



1ball wrote:


Just listen to his fuckin' speeches. Sheesh.



I take it... that's a "No".
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:19:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
LadyX wrote:
So, in other words, the outcome of worthless shares occur in other bankruptcies as well. Which means that those left with their investments wiped away is a separate issue from the government's investment, if I understand you correctly.


No, in these words; the government has no business bailing out company's that fail be they Wall street or Detroit. It's not the governments role. The difference is unions give big to democrats and wall street investors have no union. Somehow investors in wall street and Detroit lost but a union that didn't have a penny invested now holds 17% of G.M. No other words than those.


RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:24:20 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
It's VEBA (voluntary employee benefit association) that as part of the settlement, has 17 percent equity in GM, not the UAW. It's a separate entity. I would imagine you'll tell me that this is a formality, and that there's a cabal of union types that act as the wizard behind the curtain here. If this is the case, please back this up. Otherwise, point of fact, the union does not have an ownership stake in GM, yet people continue to state this as if it's true.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:38:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:
Always something new to learn on these forums. It would definitely be hard to run a company as big as GM without the workers who are trained at the various processes the company is engaged in. Not to mention that you can't just cut wages if they have a collectively bargained contract in place.


The process of bankruptcy is to take an irrational situation and make it rational, which the breakup option does when necessary. The bankruptcy judge can void a collectively bargained contract when the option of breakup is left on the table. They try to encourage a negotiated settlement and the ability to avoid a breakup is a powerful incentive for unions to negotiate.

Quote:
As soon as a company files for bankruptcy protection, the creditors (which the union would be)


The unions aren't creditors beyond what the owners are legally required to pay for labor already expended and to fund benefits per the contracts until the contracts are voided. Those costs were covered in GM's case, but the UAW's future interests were moved ahead of the shareholders to avoid having higher unemployment and a UAW benefit fund bailout on the President's record. Had the corporation been allowed to fail, the shareholders would have gotten something from the breakup and the UAW benefit funds would then go into bankruptcy. The fail option was not allowed on the table and the negotiated settlement was tilted in theUAW's favor to pay the cost of protecting the jobs over the shareholders' interests and to decrease the UAW concessions at taxpayer expense. No matter how you look at it, it was crony socialism. Both shareholders and taxpayers got screwed.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:39:02 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,465
Location: Cakeland, United States


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
LadyX
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:55:42 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
WellMadeMale wrote:


LOL.

That was one of my favorite moments from the debate. Neither he nor marathon-boy Ryan will get specific about anything at all, except that they want to cut PBS's funding. Yes, children's television programming is a real problem in this country, glad you're ready to roll up those Faconnable sleeves of yours and tackle it, Mittens. What a bunch of needless waste!
oldrascal
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 5:44:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
Just a quick note, It was on the news today that Big Bird enterprises is worth $400.000,000. I don't think they need my money.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:52:54 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
oldrascal wrote:
Just a quick note, It was on the news today that Big Bird enterprises is worth $400.000,000. I don't think they need my money.


What news are you listening to? The plan is to cut funding to PBS, not specifically to defund one character from Sesame Street. Not funding PBS would save about 444 million dollars a year. That's if we cut them off without a cent. Lets not bother with the billions in waste in the defense budget every year. No, that would be wrong. We can save a tiny fraction of that by cutting Big Bird's throat.

The government spends $15 billion a year on travel. Sixty billion has been lost due to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are plenty of places to save money.

Public broadcasting provides educational and cultural programming that is more valuable to the country than the cost of the company's budget. Sesame Street itself is pretty much self supporting, so singling it out as an example of wasteful government spending is stupid to begin with. The other programs that PBS produces and has produced over the years are shows that would probably not have been made by commercial networks.

There is a great block of children's programming on PBS. There are great history, science and music shows as well. Everything doesn't need to be profitable. We're a society, not a huge mass of individuals living every man for himself. Talking about killing Big Bird just makes Republicans seem mean spirited and hateful. So I guess that's a plus anyway.
Buz
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2012 10:48:54 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,338
Location: Atlanta, United States
Romney certainly proved he is a more skilled debater than Obama.

Where is Ron Paul when you need him?

oldrascal
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2012 9:38:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
I think you made my point Ruth by noting all the subsidies the government hands out. As romney said, should we be borrowing Chinese money to subsidize all these programs that can exist on their own in a capitalist society. The Constitution doesn't give government the authority to do this. We're broke folks and something needs to feel the ax.
Ruthie
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2012 3:40:10 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
oldrascal wrote:
I think you made my point Ruth by noting all the subsidies the government hands out. As romney said, should we be borrowing Chinese money to subsidize all these programs that can exist on their own in a capitalist society. The Constitution doesn't give government the authority to do this. We're broke folks and something needs to feel the ax.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.