American capitalism gone with a whimper

[Kosar_For_President]

What a cute bipartisan middle school essay. It's like you post the same article over and over again with the paragraphs moved around in a different order. The truth is America has been for sale for years. Like this article is a revelation of what's going on in America. The shit he writes is SO hard to see, lol, what a genius. He really puts things in perspective, yea if you're 10 years old. Come on, Cal, your like a comedian that can't write new material, so played.

[calfoxwc]

Well,

I consider it interesting because of the source, and the same take from

a source that isn't the usual.

THAT was the point, which, you miss again.

Look at the source of the material. That's the point.

[Mr. T]

Socialism is here and the dumbed downed populas continue to ignore it.

[Mr. T]

GM wanted to file Bankruptcy, but not before the fascist Obamanoids got ahold of it and told them what they can and cant do.

Each day we move closer to socialism, and before that can really take hold we will see more fascist moves such as taking control of banks, now taking control of industry. Whats up next? healthcare.

For all of you who voted for the american idol Obama, I hope your proud to be able to tell your children and grandchildren you voted away America..... Suckers!

[mz.]

@mr.-t said:

Socialism is here and the dumbed downed populas continue to ignore it.

Seriously, and I say this with all due respect, but why is it the morons always, without fail, think the "others" are the dumb ones.

It is absolutely comical.

[calfoxwc]

Actually, "dumbed down" does not refer to morons or dumb people.

It refers to otherwise bright, articulate people whose liberalism

causes them to have a reality fog surround their psyches.

Just helping ya out with a concise definition of terms.

[mz.]

@calfoxwc said:

Actually, "dumbed down" does not refer to morons or dumb people.

It refers to otherwise bright, articulate people whose liberalism

causes them to have a reality fog surround their psyches.

Just helping ya out with a concise definition of terms.

Dumbed down refers to making complex things easier for the stupid to comprehend.

The tenets of Socialism, or any other ism for that matter, are so far above Mr. T's head that it is impossible to dumb them down enough for him, and the rest of the Palinites, to understand.

So they just cry Socialism! and think they're smart.

Which is beyond funny.

[calfoxwc]

My definition is more valid than your definition.

You're biased. GGG

[Mr. T]

mz. said:

Dumbed down refers to making complex things easier for the stupid to comprehend.

The tenets of Socialism, or any other ism for that matter, are so far above Mr. T's head that it is impossible to dumb them down enough for him, and the rest of the Palinites, to understand.

So they just cry Socialism! and think they're smart.

Which is beyond funny.

Coming from you its only funny and misguided.

Just remember when dumbing down the subject matter so even the dumbest liberal can get an "A" in school means the smarter students wont have to apply themselves so now they all become equal. thats your utopia, and I do believe you were part of that educational process.

[mz.]

@mr.-t said:

Coming from you its only funny and misguided.

Just remember when dumbing down the subject matter so even the dumbest liberal can get an "A" in school means the smarter students wont have to apply themselves so now they all become equal. thats your utopia, and I do believe you were part of that educational process.

The Browns Board Political Discussion Forum: the only place where a comprehensive and formal education is frowned upon.

Here's T's "Senior" class photo. He's top row, 4th from the left.

[calfoxwc]

Why is it that only a few libs want to try to ridicule others for not going to THEIR college or not getting THEIR

degree or not having THEIR career or not having THEIR opinions?

I know a farmer who quit high school back in the day that could out-think, out-logic and out-common-sense

you.

I call it arrogance as a psychological self-defense mechanism, as a guess.

[Mr. T]

I may of not been able to finish college and get some BS degree, but I have still managed to make good money, and probably more than what mz the pussy is getting paid even with his 9 years of college.

I have seen many people scared of going into the work place so they stayed in school and finished every major they could before they felt secure enough to fill out a job application.

But other than mz the pussy wrecking the thread once again, may he go on with a whimper.

Miz did you add these to your art collection?

.

[mz.]

@calfoxwc said:

I call it arrogance as a psychological self-defense mechanism, as a guess.

Just as I can call T's (and your) continued blasting of formalized education a rationalization of something you were afraid to challenge yourself with or perhaps just intellectually unable to tackle. Either way, we could argue this forever.

But you could certainly call T a hypocrite for calling college "BS" and playing the always humorous "I make more than you" card while most likely attempting to pit his kid(s) through college...

[Kosar_For_President]

Come one T, that's unfair bro. Just because someone went to college to better themselves. I think we both grew up and work in the same industry. With 10 years experience under my belt, I went back to college and got a Masters. First, it was fun and second it's makes ya feel good. There are other aspects to going to college other then just getting a job. I have over 280 undergraduate credits, no shit! It's wasn't about the degrees (although nice) it was about learning and having fun with learning. Yea I have 3 degrees and 2 minors, who gives a shit, it's just paper. Yea I owe a small house in student loans, but it was worth it.

Hey T, real quick, not to belittle our industry at all, do you know what occupation has the 5th highest rate of suicides? Printers.

[calfoxwc]

I had two years of college at Kent State, then went into the Air Force.

Biology and genetics classes at Wright State while I was in the Air Force.

Went to Akron after college, got my degree in computer science.

Nobody dissed college education. We just don't say it makes us a man,

or makes our opinions the absolute correct opinions.

We don't disagree with your stuff because of your education, but

because you're wrong.

IMHO, you couldn't hack farming. Too much stuff to know and be able to do.

You know, I once went and met a PHD at work years ago, in R&D. He was a polymer science

PHD from India. Well, I wrote a new program at the behest of the VP of R&D, and my results

(complex math computations) kept coming out different from the PHD's manual calcs (with his calculator...).

So, I double checked my code and the complex, long ass crazy formula and I knew I was correct.

Then the PHD got PO'd, and said he had all these honors from college and was a PHD and I wasn't

and I was a *&^%*&^ incompetent worker. And I simply walked to the VP's office, with him following.

Well, he repeated his "I'm a PHD and this buffoon has insulted me by doing it this way and making my

calculations look wrong" etc etc etc. And he was angry. I sat there, and went to the white board and

explained.

So, the VP asked me to excuse them and I went back to work.

Later, the PHD walked solemnly out of his office, sent to his office, and left for lunch.

The VP asked me to go to lunch with him. And, laughing, said I was absolutely correct and the PHD

didn't take it too well.

You know, it took about 3 weeks for him to take me to lunch and apologize! He said word got out, and

he was asking people about all the many technical programs I'd done, and really came away amazed how

people respected my work. He said he was from a high caste in India, where respect often manifests itself

in not disagreeing with him, ever.

He became a pretty neat human being that day, and we got along excellently from then on.

It's immature to use one's higher education to belittle others. And it's sad.

And, sometimes it comes back to bite you in the butt.

[calfoxwc]

And, the lack of a formal education?

The old farmer I know, his father got hurt, he quit high school and took over

a lot of the farming for his Dad to support their family.

A lot of folks didn't finish or go to college for some very courageous and caring reasons.

And any dissing them is completely uncalled for.

[Mr. T]

@kosar_for_president said:

Come one T, that's unfair bro. Just because someone went to college to better themselves. I think we both grew up and work in the same industry. With 10 years experience under my belt, I went back to college and got a Masters. First, it was fun and second it's makes ya feel good. There are other aspects to going to college other then just getting a job. I have over 280 undergraduate credits, no shit! It's wasn't about the degrees (although nice) it was about learning and having fun with learning. Yea I have 3 degrees and 2 minors, who gives a shit, it's just paper. Yea I owe a small house in student loans, but it was worth it.

Hey T, real quick, not to belittle our industry at all, do you know what occupation has the 5th highest rate of suicides? Printers.

Sounds great I am glad you were able to do get your masters, I have been to busy working and raising a family.

The suicide thing is bad, I never knew that. maybe we need therapy May I suggest group therapy we can get some bats and beat the shit out of a fax machine.

I am not knocking miz i am stating reality

[Kosar_For_President]

@calfoxwc said:

It's immature to use one's higher education to belittle others. And it's sad.

I don't think you are talking to me here Cal. But I agree with you. I came from a poor ass family, dad on disability, the whole 9 yards. I am not wealthy by any means, believe me. There is a huge difference in being arrogant and being confident. Believe me, I NEVER forget where I came from. As your story implies, you felt pretty good putting that ass in his place. Just don't forget that when someone puts you in your place on this board, and when you answer the same way as your Indian "buddy" did, lol.

[ballpeen]

here is what should have happened with GM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd00d2c6-4ee2-11...?nclick_check=1

How Washington blew GM’s bankruptcy

By Michael Levine

Published: June 1 2009 20:33 | Last updated: June 1 2009 20:33

As General Motors finally filed for bankruptcy on Monday, some critics of the move have already made the case that Congress, not a White House task force, should have planned the bankruptcy. They are right about one thing: a White House task force should not have planned the bankruptcy. But they are 180 degrees wrong about what the government should have done. The bankruptcy needed much less “public policy” input, not more. If GM were going through a “normal” bankruptcy, here is what would have happened:

When it saw it was running out of cash last November, GM would have been forced to put together a plan that immediately stopped its financial haemorrhaging by selectively suspending its obligations and asked for protection from its creditors by filing under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. To keep going through the process without liquidating, it would have had to get a debtor-in-possession loan (a high-priority loan secured by all the company’s assets). As a condition of providing the DIP loan, the government, like a private lender, might have insisted upfront on installing a management committed to a successful bankruptcy. Once in bankruptcy, GM management would have been required to propose a reorganisation plan with a reasonable chance of success. GM would have been able to determine which contracts to reject, giving it the chance to restructure its dealer networks, supply and long-term debt, secured and unsecured. Crucially, using Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code, it would have been able to reform its labour contracts to the extent necessary to achieve a successful reorganisation. If its proposals are rejected by the union without good cause, the court can impose it.

During bankruptcy, GM would have been able to sell off divisions, facilities and brands. Finally, if a plan of reorganisation that was likely to get a better outcome than liquidation was proposed, the court would approve it and a “new” GM would emerge.

What would have been the impediments to doing this? Management would not face the inevitable, so GM had (perhaps deliberately) placed itself in a position where it needed money to keep going long enough to file for bankruptcy. No private credit might have been available for a DIP loan under the conditions prevailing then and now. If the filing was done without prior negotiation with unions and creditors, the proceeding might have been so messy and protracted that it could have substantially reduced the possibility of a successful reorganisation. The plan might not succeed. Notice that I have not mentioned that the filing and the actions taken to protect GM from its creditors would cause great pain to workers, suppliers, dealers and cities. That is because that pain will occur anyway.

What would have been the role for government in this scenario? Providing bridge financing and a DIP loan, and setting a much shorter deadline for filing than was ultimately adopted. The deadline would have forced all parties to negotiate as much “prepackaging” as possible, because the unions and unsecured creditors would not have wanted to take their chances on a filing, and the secured creditors could not have been assured of a rapid liquidation in such an important bankruptcy. The loan could have been secured by GM’s assets and a claim on its revenues, and not involved the government in owning and managing the company. The billions of dollars the government would have saved by starting this process last winter could have been used to alleviate collateral damage through aid to state governments, unemployment insurance, etc. Both of those activities would have met genuine needs, commercial and social, without the government being forced to own and manage GM.

Instead, the Obama administration overtly played favourites to get the United Auto Workers protection it would not have received under Section 1113, probably elevating costs in a way that will damage prospects for a successful reorganisation. It made and imposed business judgments on GM about what cars to make and what plants to close (and perhaps about suppliers and distribution) that no one in the government or on the task force had the experience to make and for which no one would be financially accountable. Worst of all, despite Sunday’s desperate attempt to distance itself from GM’s future decisions, it left its fingerprints all over the new plan. Inevitably the White House will take political and hence financial responsibility for its success, relieving pressure on management and labour to succeed. Ultimately it elected to adopt an industrial policy toward the industry that failed utterly in the UK, and has worked out badly and expensively in France and Italy.

Finally, in the process, it disturbed the security of expectation that has made lenders willing to provide capital as secured credit, thus handicapping all US industry and undermining what has been, for all its flaws, one of the best financial reorganisation processes in the world, now emulated elsewhere.

The administration took a tragic situation and turned it into an expensive mess to pay a political debt. It wasted billions of dollars over many months delaying GM’s filing and then implicitly put itself on the hook for many billions more. The financial, political and social echoes of that decision will be with us for a long time. In short, they blew it.

The writer is distinguished research scholar and senior lecturer at New York University School of Law

[Kosar_For_President]

@ballpeen said:

here is what should have happened with GM

I agree here peen, Bush should of done something back in November.