Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/04/14921926-delphi-retirees-say-obama-administration-betrayed-them?lite

Looks like these guys got hosed by Obama and GM kissing union butt.

She hasn't had a working dishwasher in 2 years? Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

Yeah, better get Obama out of office so we can send all those jobs to China with no pension payments.

Not to worry, if Obama gets re elected, we'll see a lot of jobs going by the boards.

Hang on, the guy retired at 53 and owns a boat big enough for him and his wife to sleep in? That really, really doesn't sound that bad.

Meanwhile, given Romney was opposed to the auto-bailout entirely, what the hell are we talking about here?

Relapse wrote:
Not to worry, if Romney gets elected, we'll see a lot of jobs going by the boards.

Fixed that for you. Obama's record might not be perfect, but I really doubt we're going to do any better with a president who made his fortune by destroying US jobs and/or sending them to China and pocketing the profits.

Unless of course you're a wealthy investment banker, in which case Romney will be great for you.

Socialism, obviously.

Unemployment is already rising And should break above 8% sometime soon. I will be the first one happy if everything I read gets proven wrong, but I think that based off what I see around and what I've heard and read in the news, a second Obama term is really going to be bad for this country.

Relapse wrote:
Unemployment is already rising And should break above 8% sometime soon. I will be the first one happy if everything I read gets proven wrong, but I think that based off what I see around and what I've heard and read in the news, a second Obama term is really going to be bad for this country.

And you really think Romney is going to be better when he has a proven record of destroying US jobs for his own benefit?

PS: remember the part where Romney opposed the auto bailout so the people in your article would have no pension or job at all?

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Unemployment is already rising And should break above 8% sometime soon. I will be the first one happy if everything I read gets proven wrong, but I think that based off what I see around and what I've heard and read in the news, a second Obama term is really going to be bad for this country.

And you really think Romney is going to be better when he has a proven record of destroying US jobs for his own benefit?

I think I like my chances better with Romney than a guy who promises his supporters revenge and has an adviser talking about the second term being payback time.

Are you going to address the part where Romney opposed the bailout so that the people in the article would have no pension or job at all? Or are you just gonna skip by that with meaningless "I like my chances"?

 curran12 wrote:
Are you going to address the part where Romney opposed the bailout so that the people in the article would have no pension or job at all? Or are you just gonna skip by that with meaningless "I like my chances"?

I don't think it will be much time before they need another bailout at our substantial cost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

Relapse wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Are you going to address the part where Romney opposed the bailout so that the people in the article would have no pension or job at all? Or are you just gonna skip by that with meaningless "I like my chances"?

I don't think it will be much time before they need another bailout at our substantial cost.

And then what should we do?

If you say "let them die", fine, I suppose it's a legitimate position that we can't afford to take on more debt to keep private businesses intact. However, you can't pretend that this is magically not going to destroy jobs. So I want you to say it openly: "we can't afford to keep these people employed".

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Are you going to address the part where Romney opposed the bailout so that the people in the article would have no pension or job at all? Or are you just gonna skip by that with meaningless "I like my chances"?

I don't think it will be much time before they need another bailout at our substantial cost.

And then what should we do?

If you say "let them die", fine, I suppose it's a legitimate position that we can't afford to take on more debt to keep private businesses intact. However, you can't pretend that this is magically not going to destroy jobs. So I want you to say it openly: "we can't afford to keep these people employed".

Make them inovate and be more creative, not dependant on a country that will be made bankrupt supporting all of Obama's giveaways.
To give an example, I had a friend that was doing an engineering internship at a large aircraft manufacturer. He needed to get some work done at his station and moved a sheet of metal about 15 feet. The next day a shop steward came to him letting him know he had a greivance filed because he did someone elses work when he moved that metal.
I really don't want my money going to support that kind of union garbage because any company that functions that way these days and doesn't offer a unique or superior product is going broke however many times it gets bailed. Case in point, GM

Relapse wrote:
Make them inovate and be more creative, not dependant on a country that will be made bankrupt supporting all of Obama's giveaways.

Then say it: "I want to let those companies die and let those people be unemployed". That's what you want, now be honest enough to say it openly instead of pretending Romney's top priority is creating and keeping jobs.

To give an example, I had a friend that was doing an engineering internship at a large aircraft manufacturer. He needed to get some work done at his station and moved a sheet of metal about 15 feet. The next day a shop steward came to him letting him know he had a greivance filed because he did someone elses work when he moved that metal.

So union stupidity means we should send those jobs to China? Because that's what Romney would love to do if he had the chance.

Relapse wrote:
I don't think it will be much time before they need another bailout at our substantial cost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

Umm, that's an op ed piece, for which the case given is 'the share price dropped' and 'I don't like the Malibu'. There is not one mention of any projection of the long term cash position that would be needed to project that GM is heading for bankruptcy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Make them inovate and be more creative, not dependant on a country that will be made bankrupt supporting all of Obama's giveaways.
To give an example, I had a friend that was doing an engineering internship at a large aircraft manufacturer. He needed to get some work done at his station and moved a sheet of metal about 15 feet. The next day a shop steward came to him letting him know he had a greivance filed because he did someone elses work when he moved that metal.
I really don't want my money going to support that kind of union garbage because any company that functions that way these days and doesn't offer a unique or superior product is going broke however many times it gets bailed. Case in point, GM

Sure, I agree that removing the protocols and cultures that exist in a heavily unionised industry are a key step in making US car manufacturing internationally competitive again. Government involvement to take on the once hidden and now crushing expenses of those pension for life programs, and reductions in the cost of health care (which have been estimated as adding anywhere up to $1,000 to the cost of every new car) are the other key elements.

But, frankly, you can't just pretend that letting these companies go bankrupt will make any of that happen. The collapse of the US auto industry in 2009 was brought forward by maybe a full decade because of the GFC, and the only sensible response was to help it recover, and then spend the next decade reforming the industry, using government takeover of pension as leverage against both unions and manufacturers to drive reform through necessary reform.

It's how countries build healthy, sustainable industry. Unfortunately Romney's party right now is happy to just shout 'free market' and pretend that achieves anything.

This has actually been a locked thread a few months ago.

Edit: Looks like it wasn't locked.

But feel free to review so that we can repeat the same old arguments over and over again:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/468272.page

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Make them inovate and be more creative, not dependant on a country that will be made bankrupt supporting all of Obama's giveaways.

Then say it: "I want to let those companies die and let those people be unemployed". That's what you want, now be honest enough to say it openly instead of pretending Romney's top priority is creating and keeping jobs.

To give an example, I had a friend that was doing an engineering internship at a large aircraft manufacturer. He needed to get some work done at his station and moved a sheet of metal about 15 feet. The next day a shop steward came to him letting him know he had a greivance filed because he did someone elses work when he moved that metal.

So union stupidity means we should send those jobs to China? Because that's what Romney would love to do if he had the chance.

How many billions do you want to give to a company that can't make a go of it? I'm straight out saying I don't want tax money this country can't afford doled out to businesses that have management and labor coasting along until they face closing their doors before any attempt is made at reform.

I've never read a story about a Happy Auto Worker.

Just saying.

Ouze wrote:She hasn't had a working dishwasher in 2 years? Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

My best friend didn't have a dishwasher until he was 23, and by him I mean his parents. I fail to sympathize.

kronk wrote:I've never read a story about a Happy Auto Worker.

Just saying.

The non-union Dephi guys did get hosed when people they worked next to still have their pensions. Not that I particularly support them, but it's hardly the egalitarianism that liberals are supposed to represent.

In these hard economic times, if you have only one smartphone, one plasma screen tv, one of each electric appliance and just one car, you should blame Obama for not having two of each.

Everyone a dishwasher Problem though is how often you do it

 WarOne wrote:
In these hard economic times, if you have only one smartphone, one plasma screen tv, one of each electric appliance and just one car, you should blame Obama for not having two of each.

Somewhat relatedto what you said, this is what I support obamaphone for, that woman in Cleavland made me sick.
http://mashable.com/2012/10/29/smartphone-homeless/

I only have 1 cell phone, one fridge, one desk top computer, and one cat.

Who do I complain to??

If you honestly think Romney is going to send our jobs overseas you need to get your head checked. First of all, the President has no control over where an employer operates or who they hire. Second of all, regardless of where Romney made his money, he won't be making any more of it in that manner, at least not while he's in the oval office. He will, after all, want a second term, and for that he needs to avoid corruption charges and have a decent approval rating. Finally, to suggest that he would intentionally destroy this country in such a manner when he has a record of doing good work for his electorate, is quite frankly insulting.

 kronk wrote:
I only have 1 cell phone, one fridge, one desk top computer, and one cat.

Who do I complain to??

http://www.commerce.gov/contact-us

For the work blocked:

Mail

U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Phone

Main line: (202) 482-2000
Library: (202) 482-1154

Nice!

So, to sum up this thread, some auto worker who, due to President Obama's intervention, kept his job but lost his pension is unhappy, so we should vote for the guy who repeatedly said he'd save neither?

Makes sense.

 Ouze wrote:
So, to sum up this thread, some auto worker who, due to President Obama's intervention, kept his job but lost his pension is unhappy, so we should vote for the guy who repeatedly said he'd save neither?

Makes sense.

No... the basic issue here is that current bankruptcy laws weren't traditionally used.

Obama's administration favored the Auto-Union workers over the Non-Union Delphi workers... which wouldn't have happened in a traditional bankruptcy proceeding.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So, to sum up this thread, some auto worker who, due to President Obama's intervention, kept his job but lost his pension is unhappy, so we should vote for the guy who repeatedly said he'd save neither?

Makes sense.

No... the basic issue here is that current bankruptcy laws weren't traditionally used.

Obama's administration favored the Auto-Union workers over the Non-Union Delphi workers... which wouldn't have happened in a traditional bankruptcy proceeding.

Also favored the unions over the SECURED debt holders, something not legal.