Hey Barfo!

[Denny Crane]

No, GM is responsible for the pensions.

barfo

So if the feds are going to bail out the pension fund, they'd do just the US part. We don't owe the Canadians $.01 and they can take care of their own.

 

[barfo]

So if the feds are going to bail out the pension fund, they'd do just the US part. We don't owe the Canadians $.01 and they can take care of their own.

What would be the point of that, exactly? That's not going to keep GM from going belly up.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What would be the point of that, exactly? That's not going to keep GM from going belly up.

barfo

GM was already belly up. All Obama's proven is that you can pump in $65B (with this obligation likely doubling that amount) and keep the company alive long enough to find suckers to buy it at a discount.

 

[barfo]

GM was already belly up.

You are suggesting bailing out the pension plan but not the company. To what end?

All Obama's proven is that you can pump in $65B (with this obligation likely doubling that amount)

No idea what you mean about 'this obligation' and 'that amount'.

and keep the company alive long enough to find suckers to buy it at a discount.

Which was in fact the goal of the exercise.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You are suggesting bailing out the pension plan but not the company. To what end?



No idea what you mean about 'this obligation' and 'that amount'.



Which was in fact the goal of the exercise.

barfo

The pension fund doesn't accrue any new obligations once the company goes bankrupt and is reorganized. Or maybe it is. In any case, you get your safety net where the government only has to guarantee the retirees get their benefits.

 

[barfo]

The pension fund doesn't accrue any new obligations once the company goes bankrupt and is reorganized. Or maybe it is. In any case, you get your safety net where the government only has to guarantee the retirees get their benefits.

I think the government was more concerned with avoiding the effects of a potential liquidation of GM than with the pension being funded.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the government was more concerned with avoiding the effects of a potential liquidation of GM than with the pension being funded.

barfo

The damage done by the government stepping in as investor cannot be understated. It added to our debt, the fed is printing money to cover it, and people are wary of investing in anything, especially GM, because the government might do it again.

There were deals in the works for GM that the government essentially scuttled. All to give a gift to the union.

As it stands now, GM has a lot of cash on their books, all of it and then some owed to the pension plan. The people who bought the stock really are suckers.

Do tell, what would have been the effects of a potential liquidation of GM? And why didn't the government hold on to the stock until they could have sold at break even?

 

[barfo]

The damage done by the government stepping in as investor cannot be understated.

Really? The damage must be zero, then, if it cannot be understated.

It added to our debt, the fed is printing money to cover it,

You could say that about absolutely anything the government spends money on.

and people are wary of investing in anything, especially GM, because the government might do it again.

The GM IPO last week says you are wrong.

There were deals in the works for GM that the government essentially scuttled. All to give a gift to the union.

This is just a bizarre fantasy of yours. As I've pointed out before, if GM could have gotten a non-government deal, they would have taken it.
In fact the GM CEO testified that there were no bidders other than the government.

Chief Executive Frederick “Fritz” Henderson said in an affidavit that the auto maker, starting around June 2008, explored raising as much as $3 billion through a public stock or bond offering.

Mr. Henderson said no one except the federal government expressed interest in lending to the auto maker or purchasing its assets at a price that would have kept the company operating.

As it stands now, GM has a lot of cash on their books, all of it and then some owed to the pension plan. The people who bought the stock really are suckers.

People make investments, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Its the American way. Why do you hate America?

Do tell, what would have been the effects of a potential liquidation of GM?

A deeper recession with higher unemployment.

And why didn't the government hold on to the stock until they could have sold at break even?

Because people like you complain bitterly about the government owning GM.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Hehe...It's like shooting ducks in a barrel.

 

[Denny Crane]

Really? The damage must be zero, then, if it cannot be understated.



You could say that about absolutely anything the government spends money on.



The GM IPO last week says you are wrong.



This is just a bizarre fantasy of yours. As I've pointed out before, if GM could have gotten a non-government deal, they would have taken it.
In fact the GM CEO testified that there were no bidders other than the government.





People make investments, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Its the American way. Why do you hate America?



A deeper recession with higher unemployment.



Because people like you complain bitterly about the government owning GM.

barfo

Is that the best you can do? Who is Fritz Henderson? The guy Obama put in charge after firing the CEO of GM. No wonder nobody wanted to give the company money at that point.

And who did Obama put in charge of overseeing all the automakers during their bailouts?

http://sharesleuth.com/dailynotes/2010/11/former-auto-czar-settles-with-sec-is-sued-by-new-york/

Former auto czar settles with SEC, is sued by New York for pay-to-play scandal

Dealbook says Steven L. Rattner, who oversaw the restructuring of auto companies that got public aid through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, settled charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his role in a kickback scheme to secure business with the with the New York state pension fund. Ratner agreed to pay $6.8 million. As the settlement was announced, New York's attorney general sued Rattner, too, demanding $26 million and a lifetime ban from the securities industry. Rattner told Dealbook: "I will not be bullied simply because the Attorney General's office prefers political considerations instead of a reasoned assessment of the facts," and "This episode is the first time during 35 years in business that anyone has questioned my ethics or integrity..."

This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey barfo,

Feeling lonely this holiday season?

[video=youtube;joIxWcFO3bY]

 

[barfo]

Is that the best you can do? Who is Fritz Henderson? The guy Obama put in charge after firing the CEO of GM. No wonder nobody wanted to give the company money at that point.

He pretty clearly says that no one wanted to give the company money after mid-2008. And Henderson wasn't some guy from the government, he was a 25-year GM employee and was GM's CFO before being appointed CEO. I believe he'd know whether GM had offers.

And who did Obama put in charge of overseeing all the automakers during their bailouts?

Former auto czar settles with SEC, is sued by New York for pay-to-play scandal

Dealbook says Steven L. Rattner, who oversaw the restructuring of auto companies that got public aid through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, settled charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his role in a kickback scheme to secure business with the with the New York state pension fund. Ratner agreed to pay $6.8 million. As the settlement was announced, New York's attorney general sued Rattner, too, demanding $26 million and a lifetime ban from the securities industry. Rattner told Dealbook: "I will not be bullied simply because the Attorney General's office prefers political considerations instead of a reasoned assessment of the facts," and "This episode is the first time during 35 years in business that anyone has questioned my ethics or integrity..."

This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Really? So Rattner being a crook proves which of your points, exactly?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

He pretty clearly says that no one wanted to give the company money after mid-2008. And Henderson wasn't some guy from the government, he was a 25-year GM employee and was GM's CFO before being appointed CEO. I believe he'd know whether GM had offers.

According to Ralph Nader, http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2060-Statement-on-Auto-Industry-Bailouts.html, Congress had already been messing with the private market for capital.

"Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg -- a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability."

Really? So Rattner being a crook proves which of your points, exactly?

barfo

Why not hire a crook to steal all that money from the treasury.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey barfo,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-11-22-poll-usa-divided_N.htm

Poll: Tea Party support grows; USA divided

WASHINGTON — Just about as many Americans want Tea Party-backed members of Congress to take the lead in setting policy during the next year as choose President Obama, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%.

The results reflect the strength of the Tea Party movement as the GOP prepares to take control of the House of Representatives in January.

The survey also underscores Obama's weakened standing. His overall job approval rating, at 42%, is 1 percentage point higher than his historic low in midsummer. His 35% approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oops!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/11/obama-romney-palin.html

Lowest ever: Obama job approval sinks to 39%, as even Democrats' support melts away

Turns out voters were not simply satisfied to spank the Democrat and his party in the Nov. 2 midterm elections with historic losses in the House of Representatives.

Obama's job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

Obama now trails in hypothetical 2012 matchups against Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the next Bush, Jeb.

And, oh, my! Lookee here! Obama has even fallen into a statistical tie with none other than Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. How embarrassing that is because other polls have shown a majority of Americans believe she is unqualified for the presidency. So it appears many have now decided, on second thought, Obama looks that way too.

 

[jlprk]

And, oh, my! Lookee here! Obama has even fallen into a statistical tie with none other than Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. How embarrassing that is because other polls have shown a majority of Americans believe she is unqualified for the presidency.

You just admitted that your poll disagrees with most other polls.

The survey also underscores Obama's weakened standing. His overall job approval rating, at 42%, is 1 percentage point higher than his historic low in midsummer. His 35% approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency.

Obama is at the lowest in the history of HIS own past ratings. Since he started much higher than Bush when Bush "won" his 2000 election, Obama still makes Bush look like a piker.

Notice how the article carefully closes by planting the number 35% in the reader's mind, when the actual number is 42%.

As for Palin, delighted to have her. Obama has always had such luck in lightweight candidates, even in Illinois. The TV Weather Girl will get blown down like a feather.

As for your poll, HEY DENNY, here's today's poll.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104152/poll-majority-of-americans-want.html

 

[Denny Crane]

You just admitted that your poll disagrees with most other polls.



Obama is at the lowest in the history of HIS own past ratings. Since he started much higher than Bush when Bush "won" his 2000 election, Obama still makes Bush look like a piker.

Notice how the article carefully closes by planting the number 35% in the reader's mind, when the actual number is 42%.

As for Palin, delighted to have her. Obama has always had such luck in lightweight candidates, even in Illinois. The TV Weather Girl will get blown down like a feather.

As for your poll, HEY DENNY, here's today's poll.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104152/poll-majority-of-americans-want.html

If you read the article, you'd see I just quoted it. My own commentary is that Obama needs to turn it around. A lot can happen in 2 years, but if he keeps on going the way he's been going, the poll numbers are going to be lower than W's was at the end of his 2nd term.

As for Palin, the polling data says to me that people see any alternative to Obama as the choice to make. At this point in time.

As for the poll you posted, the numbers are what they are, but the analysis is flawed. The things they say voters are for are the republican alternative proposals to the ginormous health care program that was passed by one side.

I posted two polls, FWIW.

 

[jlprk]

Polls are a joke! Same poll, but new article with the opposite slant. They analyzed it one way for the conservative media to report it, and another way for the liberal media!

Do you still think the analysis is flawed?
============
New poll undercuts GOP claims of a midterm mandate
By Steven Thomma
Monday, November 22, 2010

"The political give and take is very different than public opinion," said Lee M. Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., which conducted the poll. "On health care, there is a wide gap between public opinion and the political community."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104152/poll-majority-of-americans-want.html
===========
Poll: Obama's looking weak for re-election in 2012
By Steven Thomma
Tuesday, November 23, 2010

"There's some serious electoral jeopardy and his position is very tenuous," said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., which conducted the national post-election poll.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/23/104202/poll-obamas-looking-weak-for-re.html

 

[Denny Crane]

They're talking about two different questions asked in the poll.

The polls were quite good at predicting the outcome of the past election.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=463364218434

A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States
by Sarah Palin on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 5:46pm

My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…

Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden). YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.

 

[jlprk]

Let me get this straight: You want to get into a posting contest of malapropisms, Obama vs. Bush. You really like to lose, don't you?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/25/gms-union-on-road-to-recovery-after-stock-sale/

GM's union recovering after stock sale
Taxpayers and investors not as fortunate as UAW

General Motors Co.'s recent stock offering was staged to start paying back the government for its $50 billion bailout, but one group made out much better than the taxpayers or other investors: the company's union.

Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it — putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing.

The boon for the union fits the pattern established when the White House pushed GM into bankruptcy and steered it through the courts in a way that consistently put the interests of the union ahead of many suppliers, dealers and investors — stakeholders that ordinarily would have fared as well or better under the bankruptcy laws.

"Priority one was serving the interests of the UAW" when the White House's auto task force engineered the bankruptcy, said Glenn Reynolds, an analyst at CreditSights. The stock offering served to show once again how the White House has handsomely rewarded its political allies, he said.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/

Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children

One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.

The fund is administered by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. Union officials said the state compelled the fund to start buying coverage from a third party, which increased premiums by 60%. State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.

The union fund faced a “dramatic shortfall” between what employers contributed to the fund and the premiums charged by its insurance provider, Fidelis Care, according to Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU. The union fund pools contributions from several home-care agencies and then buys insurance from Fidelis.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Behroozi estimated that the fund faced a $15 million shortfall in 2011 and more in the following years for the coverage of workers’ children.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey barfo,

Is this racist?

Chia Obama. I kid you not.

 

[barfo]

Hey barfo,

Is this racist?

The one on the right is.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The one on the right is.

barfo

You bought the one on the left of course.

 

[barfo]

You bought the one on the left of course.

Of course. I paid with your money, though.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course. I paid with your money, though.

barfo

That's usually the problem with buying the one on the left.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey barfo,

Remember when Reagan said, "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" and won? I wouldn't be shocked if Palin was saying the same thing 2 years from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...they-re-worse-off-under-obama-poll-shows.html

Most Americans Say They're Worse Off Since Obama Took Office, Poll Shows

More than 50 percent of Americans say they are worse off now than they were two years ago when President Barack Obama took office, and two-thirds believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

The survey, conducted Dec. 4-7, finds that 51 percent of respondents think their situation has deteriorated, compared with 35 percent who say they’re doing better. The balance isn’t sure. Americans have grown more downbeat about the country’s future in just the last couple of months, the poll shows. The pessimism cuts across political parties and age groups, and is common to both sexes.