[Guest post by JD]
Is water wet?
Non-union pensioners got screwed. By the Obama Admin.
It has been readily apparent all along that the GM bailout was a bailout for their union cronies. Every step of the way, even in bankruptcy, the unions were given consideration they were not entitled to, ie. Placing union interests before secured creditors.
– JD
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Hot Air
Big Journalism
What They're Saying
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
Reed level of lying. To Congress. And the Courts.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:21 am
The most transparent administration EVAH strikes again.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:29 am
Yes, it has been obvious. So why is it not being investigated as the crime it was?
Can you say “Eric Holder, Bag Man”?
Comment by Space Cockroach (8096f2) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:42 am
Well, unions are a valued partner in State Corporatism.
Oh, for the simpler times of Crony Capitalism.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:45 am
“Did They Lie?”
JD – The easier question to answer is when didn’t they lie. The list is much shorter and may in fact be nonexistent.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 9:41 am
Can you say Culture of Corruption?
Comment by AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 8/7/2012 @ 9:54 am
They are worse than they immagined Bush was.
Comment by htom (412a17) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:15 am
I’m just a little pikachu, to quote one of our contributors here, but I thought things like bankruptcy laws were made to give a guideline for how things were to be done (ideally “as fair as possible”), and I never did understand why what appeared to be wholesale fraud and theft was allowed to occur (other than it was overseen by the Pres and done for the sake of his friends). I know Indiana was suing and not getting anywhere last I heard, I don’t know if any of that is still going on or died or essentially dead.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:25 am
Indiana lost its lawsuit long ago.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:36 am
R.I.P. Marvin Hamlisch
Comment by Icy (11919f) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:41 am
I understand why; no one had the power or the will to oppose Obama as he rode roughshod over the law.
The judge in one of the cases in which the secured creditors sued the Obama administration to enforce their rights compared the creditors to that lone little guy standing up to the column of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square.
I honestly don’t know what this guy will do when the brakes are completely off after he loses in November.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:42 am
10- Shocked, and Saddened!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:49 am
11, just think of the massive RICO investigation and trial of Obama, his cronies, and the O administration. They will make Grover Cleveland look like a saint.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:53 am
Please, Mitt, you need to put out an ad with this story, and then the tag line: who do you trust with your future, the government or the market?
Comment by Patricia (e1d89d) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:53 am
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 8/7/2012 @ 10:36 am
Thanks Sammy, I assume by your statement that there is no appeal in process.
I honestly don’t know what this guy will do when the brakes are completely off after he loses in November.
Comment by Steve57 — 8/7/2012 @ 10:42 am
True that.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:54 am
“I thought things like bankruptcy laws were made to give a guideline for how things were to be done”
MD in Philly – Supplemental unsecured or non-ERISA retirement plans frequently get hosed in bankruptcy proceedings, but in theory two ERISA plans under the same ultimate corporate umbrella should not receive such disparate treatment.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 11:20 am
GM is doomed and the piggy piggy union whore employees can suck a pony
also, I don’t know that the new killers song really does anything for me
Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/7/2012 @ 11:27 am
“also, I don’t know that the new killers song really does anything for me”
Mr. Feets – Mr. Obama can blow my whistle, but I’m still not going to vote for him.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 11:29 am
We will not be buying anything but Fords in the future. Currently we have two Chevy trucks, and infinity SUV and a ford expedition but when we replace the trucks they will not be Chevys.
I really do not understand how this administration literally rewrites law as they deem fit. Bankruptcy, immigration, Fast and Furious, DOMA, NLRB… Over and over the Obamanation just rewrites law by fiat and nothing gets done to stop him. Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican targeted American citizens for death with no judicial oversight? I am with Monica Crowley, “what the BLEEP just happened?” to our country?
My oldest son is autistic, attends junior college and works 20-30 hours a week for Krogers. When he first started working for them, the union harassed him to join. He would never join a union after watching their behavior in Wisconsin. The harassment stopped when I made a phone call threat to the union along the lines of if you people ever call or try to contact my son again, we will sue you for harassment of an autistic person. And we would love to do it! Please union, MAKE MY DAY! No more contact has been attempted. Dang it.
Comment by TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 8/7/2012 @ 11:52 am
Now you know why JFK maade Bobby his Attorney General!
Comment by Michael M. Keohane (af6964) — 8/7/2012 @ 11:59 am
Today an anti-Romney ad places the blame for a Stage IV cancer death of the spouse of a worker who lost his job when a factory owned by Bain failed and was closed…4 years after the factory closed and well after Romney was involved with Bain. Doesn’t this mean Obama will be responsible for the future spousal deaths of any non-union Delphi workers or small GM dealers who were shut down during the auto bailouts?
Comment by MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:14 pm
I think the question should be is this legal instead of did they lie.
Comment by Drider (b003e1) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:31 pm
Watch NASCAR shrink to Ford, Toyota, and Fiat.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:37 pm
Why can’t we walk and chew gum at the same time?
Or in other words, ask more than one question?
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:43 pm
There are many things I will do but accuse Obama of directly ordering the termination of pensions in order to favor his union backers is not one of them.
Look Barack Obama, with whom I disagree about almost everything, is a good man trying to do what he thinks is right for this country. Good men do bad things, and in the pursuit of ambition, they almost always do. Barack Obama is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but he is my President. He is OUR President. And while he hasn’t always done good, I do believe he is fundamentally a good man and a patriot who wants to make this country a better place. And let us not overlook the tremendous symbol we have in a black President, but regardless of that, it is a very good thing that we can say that this country is willing to elect a black President. It shows that anyone can succeed in this country, regardless of race. Anyone.
We have to get past this idea that we have to personally demonize the other guy in order to fight his policies. We’ve said some spirited things about Obama in the heat of battle, and we’ve meant them. But he’s not evil. Let the Democrats be the party who demonizes the other side as evil.
Let us describe Barack Obama as a good but flawed man who is likely to do some very bad things to this country. But let us nevertheless wish him well, if not politically, then at least personally.
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:57 pm
Mr. Pink – Swordfish sideways child.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 12:59 pm
(barf) soumds like Bill O’Reilly…having an affirmative-action idiot bastard’s son whose strings are pulled by Soros through Jarrett is good for the country?? What did MLK, Jr say about content of character and not color per se? Choom is a worthless piece of kaka in the opinion of many of us and it has nothing to do with skin color or racism. The Chicago Way plays a role. Choom’s past consigliere condemns Chick-Fil-a with Jew-hating, racist POS Farrakhan standing by his side. Sorry, good but flawed is not what I’ve ever seen in Urkel. Deeply flawed and evil is more like it.
Comment by Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:06 pm
To say that Mr Pink is trying too hard is a (slight) understatement.
Comment by Icy (11919f) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:09 pm
Mr.Pink, did that make sense to you? Because your comment was incoherent to me. Certainly, you never seemed to actually get anywhere near the question of Obama’s responsibility for the fraudulent deals in the GM bankruptcy – one which was run by the Treasury dept.
Comment by SPQR (b48853) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:12 pm
Watch NASCAR shrink to Ford, Toyota, and Fiat.
Comment by PCD — 8/7/2012 @ 12:37 pm
– Hate to burst your bubble, but since Chevys have won the most NASCAR races for nine out of the last ten years (and tied for most wins in that tenth year) . . .
I know that I will never buy another GM product for as long as the government owns even a 1% stake; but I’m not everybody.
Comment by Icy (11919f) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:18 pm
There are many things I will do but accuse Obama of directly ordering the termination of pensions in order to favor his union backers is not one of them.
Why? Are you allergic to the truth?
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:23 pm
Mr Pink– it was easier to wish him well both personally and politically *before* he was elected and before everybody found out what he is really about and capable of.
Comment by elissa (1ad83c) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:42 pm
Dustin – I think asking if they lied is absolutely the right question. Did they lie under Oath to Congress? Did they lie under Oath to the Courts?
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:48 pm
He would absolutely have to be. That is exactly how the Obama administration did Chrysler secured bondholders, including pension funds, when they put their unsecured creditor friends at the UAW first in line.
Chrysler was so screwed up it that it couldn’t get conventional financing. It could only get secured financing, and the only reason creditors will agree to the loans is because they have absolute priority if the company goes through bankruptcy. Even if they aren’t made whole, they are first in line. And when the company restructures they can be awarded deficiency claims so the company remains responsible for at least some of the outstanding debt.
The Obama called these people “terrorists” and “vultures” and screwed them over in favor of their connected cronies at the Unions.
To say that you will not “accuse Obama of directly ordering the termination of pensions in order to favor his union backers” is to say you intend to remain ignorant of the facts.
The record is clear; Obama has done exactly that.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:48 pm
Mr Pink– it was easier to wish him well both personally and politically *before* he was elected and before everybody found out what he is really about and capable of.
Comment by elissa — 8/7/2012 @ 1:42 pm
It was easy, it was taking the easy way out in spite of all the evidence. It was what all the supposedly intelligent people were saying we should do. if you remember at the time Patterico and others were accusing people on the right of going overboard, of being hateful. He was calling for civility and calling Obama a good man in spite of all evidence. Since then as far as I know he has never retracted so Obama remains a patriotic good man trying to do what he thinks is best for the country. How many evil actions does he have to commit before he does?
It is funny that it took that long for someone to realize I was quoting the owner of this website though.
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:49 pm
You weren’t quoting him.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:56 pm
Yes I was JD I was. Everything but the first sentence. http://patterico.com/2008/11/05/obama-a-flawed-but-good-man-who-has-made-bad-decisions-and-will-make-more/
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:57 pm
Good Allah. Your act is tiresome.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 1:59 pm
Two articles from the time of the Chrysler heist the Obama admin did on behalf of their UAW buddies, just to jog people’s memories and remind them what rotten human beings Obama and his henchmen are:
Auto Taskforce: We Don’t Negotiate With Terrorists
Obama absolutely would, and has, screwed pension funds out of hundreds of millions to favor his union cronies.
And his minions? They don’t all work for the gub’mint. Some work for the propaganda arm of the DNC, and they are ready, willing, and able to do Obama’s bidding:
Obama uses WH press corps as threat against Chrysler investors
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:01 pm
Yeah it’s tiresome pointing out that I know. All the supposed smart people in the room wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and lie to themselves so they could say he was a good man. Against mountains of evidence they did this.
And I am the tiresome ahole for pointing that out.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:05 pm
And I am the tiresome ahole
Yes. Everywhere.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks for digging out those links Steve57, even though it’s a trip down memory lane that I don’t enjoy re-living.
Comment by elissa (1ad83c) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:09 pm
This is only small change compared to the trillions US Savers have been jobbed out by the easy money policies of the Fed and corrupt inflation statistics that have dampened their fixed income returns. Let me also add import inflation for all via a weak currency resulting from easy money / lower fixed income rates.
But that Obama is a crook who believes not a whit in the law just what he wants …. I knew that as people were debating whether he was a “good man.”
ALL WELFARE-ISTAS are criminals at heart who care nothing about law or constitution or fairness. Ends always justify their means.
Obama is just one of many except he is a POTUS.
Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:11 pm
Best thing that can happen to this country, barring armed conflict, is that it simply go bankrupt and the “WELFARE-ISTAS” have inflation ravage their income to near zero.
Savers and the productive will do fine even if it is a big adjust. The pathetic WELFARE-ISTA scum will simply go down with the ship as they run around trying to figure out who to rob next.
Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:14 pm
It may be a trip down memory lane but it’s definitely not a gratuitous one, given the new revelations about how the administration shafted the former salaried Delphi employees and lied to Congress about it.
Nothing the Obama administration has done has been good for the economy. These bailouts mean simply that the rule of law was trampled, in this case bankruptcy law, which as was predicted at the time will deter investment. The Obama administration whines investors are sitting on their cash. This is one reason why. Why invest if the Obama administration is going to intervene, without any shred of legal authority, to favor their cronies at your expense?
The companies that emerged from this inefficient wasteful process were far worse off than they would have been if they restructured under a conventional bankruptcy process. And, again as predicted, they are worth far less than the amount of taxpayer money the Obama administration has poured down this toilet. They’ll never repay.
It was completely unnecessary. The Obama admin talk about “saving the US auto industry” is complete BS. GM would have been restructured, although there’s a chance Chrysler would have been liquidated. But there would still be a US auto industry, and it wouldn’t be saddled with all the bloated inefficiencies and bad union contracts that they’re still burdened with.
All the Obama admin is doing is overseeing the decline of these companies. Which is what he’s doing to the entire economy.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:32 pm
Mr. (Code) Pink,
I don’t know whether or not Obama is a “good” man—and I don’t care. In my book, a “good” man does not spend a lot of his free time fraternizing with Jew-haters and people who’ve had clear ties to terrorism.
I’m interested in the consequences of Obama’s policies.
You sound like yet another one of the Daily Kos, Move On.org, Code Pink Democrats who calls conservative talk radio shows claiming to be “a lifelong Republican, but….”
In a thread where people are discussing a false ad insanely attacking Romney for somehow being responsible for a woman’s death due to cancer several years after a plant closed, you’re uniquely focused on defending not Romney—but Obama.
If you want to talk about someone who is a good man, it is Romney. He’s clean as a whistle, and he apparently gives millions of dollars per year to charities. Nobody who has worked with him has a bad thing to say about the way he conducts himself. And he doesn’t send Ramadan cards to former members of the PLO.
Obama has had 3 1/2 years to establish a record. (You know, since he didn’t have one before he became President.)
You no longer have leeway to run around and say, “But Obama’s a nice guy ! He loves his kids !”
That stuff doesn’t fly with voters when people who also happen to be nice guys and who also happen to love their own kids are hurting tremendously in this awful Obama economy.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:39 pm
Hey Steve,
Good call on Catfish Hunter in that other thread last nite. That’s one of the coolest nicknames in baseball history.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:42 pm
Comment by TexasMom2012 — 8/7/2012 @ 11:52 am
I really do not understand how this administration literally rewrites law as they deem fit. Bankruptcy,
They didn’t rewrite law, although they wanted toi, but they fiugured oiyt a loophole. Regardless of what the law says abouyt bankruptcy, a creditor’s committee can decide who gets what money, if there ikis not enough for everyone. Votes are weighted according to dolalrs owed. Because so much money had been loaned by the government, the government had a lot of votes, I think. Together with the UAW (owed pensions) they could make just abouyt anything happen. Maybe it was a bit more complkicated than that. Some third partioes also owed money to the government.
immigration,
They just formalized the discretion that has to exist anyway, that Congress recognizes exists and is sometimes used in arguments in Congress. Really bad things won’t happen so there is no need to reqrite the law – there is prosecutorial discretion.
It went to extent almost of making a new (temporary) law, though.
Fast and Furious,
That kind of stuff – letting things go by when informanants are involved – has been around for years.
DOMA,
Well, nothing forces a president to defend a law in court, but this is almopst always done. But it is recognized sometimes good conscience won’t allow someone to defend a law. The courts appointed an independent counsel. Nothing else happened.
NLRB…
Here we see real distortions of the law to help a favored union. The case got settled asnd never taken to court
Over and over the Obamanation just rewrites law by fiat and nothing gets done to stop him. Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican targeted American citizens for death with no judicial oversight?
By Democrats anyway. But this was going on during the Bush Administration too. The best excuse is all this is when the person is in a war zone unrecheable by civil law, and is engaged in acts of war.
My oldest son is autistic, attends junior college and works 20-30 hours a week for Krogers. When he first started working for them, the union harassed him to join. He would never join a union after watching their behavior in Wisconsin. The harassment stopped when I made a phone call threat to the union along the lines of if you people ever call or try to contact my son again, we will sue you for harassment of an autistic person. And we would love to do it! Please union, MAKE MY DAY! No more contact has been attempted. Dang it.
Well, did you want them to stop?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:42 pm
Sammy, the Obama admin invented a process for nationalizing the auto industry and screwing creditors that has no precedent. It was no loophole; it was an entirely new beast they created.
You have a small point. They didn’t rewrite laws. Rewriting laws require you at least dust them off and look at the words you’re planning on changing. They didn’t do that. They just ignored them, set them aside, and come up something different.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:50 pm
The Obama Administration effectively rewrote the bankruptcy laws by subordinating secured and priority creditors to the unions’ pensions.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:54 pm
This is orwellian. Is “formalized the discretion” the new euphemism for eliminating discretion entirely? Because that is what Obama’s edict has done. In the past, prosecutors and immigration agents might have had some discretion. Now they don’t. They can not deport illegal aliens that Barack Obama has decreed will not be deported. They have to let them go. Or face disciplinary action up to and including termination for exercising their discretion.
In the name of “discretion” Obama has eliminated discretion and replaced it with hard and fast rules that US government officials have no choice but to obey.
And you’re buying this “prosecutorial discretion” line? There is no more discretion; the EO did away with it.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:55 pm
DRJ, I would say the Obama just ignored the laws in order to favor their cronies over secured creditors. I wouldn’t say they rewrote the laws because I believe bankruptcy courts still follow those laws.
They’ve just been given notice that the Obama administration will over rule them and suspend the rule of law whenever it serves their interests.
But whereas the Obama administration declares it can and has in the past just set the laws aside as it suits them, I don’t think courts have decided they can do the same.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 2:58 pm
Mr. Pink,
You seem very upset because Patterico called Obama a good man. Do you know when and why Patterico first called Obama a good man? It was to help his young daughter learn how to handle a political disappointment.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:01 pm
Mr. Stones, how does a 51 y.o. man say he grew up an A’s fan and not be able to name Catfish Hunter? Even without being asked?
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:06 pm
“You seem very upset because Patterico called Obama a good man.”
DRJ – About the only reason the two digit turd fondler Mr. Pink shows up here is to rehash his misunderstanding of those posts. It never gets old no matter how many times and how many different ways he retells it. Just good old ankle snappin’ fun.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:09 pm
Finkelman writes: ” Fast and Furious,
That kind of stuff – letting things go by when informanants are involved – has been around for years.”
This is an example of why I find your comments so bizarre, Finkelman. Are you seriously pretending that Fast & Furious is about protecting informants? Bizarre.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:11 pm
Steve457,
The plaintiffs in the Indiana pension cases argued that the government wrongfully subordinated secured creditors to unsecured creditors. While the Supreme Court refused to set aside the bankruptcy plan, it’s true that the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Chrysler decision was not good law:
In other words, the bankruptcy courts followed the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law, and the Supreme Court let them get away with it this one time. If that’s not rewriting bankruptcy law, I don’t know what is.
Todd Zywicki explains the legal issues and how the Obama Administration strong-armed the bankruptcy process here.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:11 pm
Sammy – the idea that this was just a loophole is sheer and utter nonsense.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:19 pm
For most of my life the Democrats have accused the Republicans of doing what the Democrats routinely do any time they are in power. They have occasionally been right about individual Republicans, but much more often not.
Clinton should have been impeached on a wide variety of charges having to do with fundraising and fee-for-favor deals. Obama deserves a retirement home in Federal custody. And, bluntly, most of the accusations against Bush hold about as much water as Rathergate. Which isn’t to say that Bush was a blameless little cherub; but whatever he may be guilty of has been obscured by wild charges by wishfully-thinking Liberals.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (4feea2) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:23 pm
Where is the accountability of the Union Bosses who let Delphi get spun off into oblivion and their fellow brethren defunded?
Didnt Delphi used to shut down plants with their own strikes back in the 70′s and 80′s t aide their brothers on the GM lines?
Not that I am sadden that 20,000 former way overpaid and extortion waged pensioners lost their largess but to label these Delphi workers as non-union was problematic
Comment by EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:32 pm
The real issue is not whether folks did (or did not) think he was a good man, the real issue is do you feel the same way now? And if you have changed tunes, do you admit any error in your analysis.
But if you never felt a certain way and presented a straw-man for discussion then no sense in beating a dead horse at a personal level.
I suspect those who “liked” the President “personally” in 2008 still do regardless of his administration’s malfeasance and “ends justify the means” mentality.
Those who “did not like” BHO simply feel the additional data created over three years of work on further prove their position out.
Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:35 pm
Not that I am sadden that 20,000 former way overpaid and extortion waged pensioners lost their largess but to label these Delphi workers as non-union was problematic
Engrish please?
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:37 pm
“You seem very upset because Patterico called Obama a good man.”
DRJ – About the only reason the two digit turd fondler Mr. Pink shows up here is to rehash his misunderstanding of those posts. It never gets old no matter how many times and how many different ways he retells it. Just good old ankle snappin’ fun.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2012 @ 3:09 pm
Hey douchebag has he ever taken it back? In the past 3 years of absolute failure coupled with reckless disregard for our laws, his political opponents, being in charge of a Justice Department that illegally ships guns to Mexico resulting in the deaths of over 200 people, and countless other offenses against our country has Patterico ever revised his opinion?
In this coming election does Patterico think Obama is still just another politician who is a good patriotic man we simply disagree with? I really sincerely want to know the answer to that.
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:45 pm
DRJ, it’s a tiny quibble perhaps. It’s just that the law is now what it was before Obama was elected. So it hasn’t been rewritten.
Just ignored and spit upon.
That’s why this is just flat wrong:
Of course, that’s not true. Once you’ve violated the integrity of the law, you can’t unviolate it.
I suppose in that sense one could say the law’s been rewritten. The words on the pages remain the same, but the Obama administration has set the precedent that the government can refuse to follow it whenever it feels like. So no one will know, if they get into a dispute and the government or its cronies is involved, what the rules will be. The statutes on the books. Or some arbitrary, capricious policy to be determined later.
A rewritten law would be better than the system we have now. Which is no system at all. My quibble is that from my perspective I don’t see Obama having rewritten the law as simply eliminate it. Thanks to Obama investors know there is no law when it comes to stealing their investment.
Once you do that, you can’t undo it. There is no bill that we can pass and the President can sign into law that anyone can believe the government will follow.
Zywicki makes the same point I made earlier. Not that it’s original, as a lot of people have made it:
Third world banana republics aren’t attractive places to invest your money. Because third world banana republics have dictators who do what Obama did. Screw over investors.
Any leftist who shows up here, or anywhere, and complains that the rich are sabotaging Obama’s wonderful recovery plan by parking their money on the sidelines needs to be slapped down hard. Why would they want to put it anywhere within reach of Obama’s thieving hands, or those of his cronies? He’s already shown those investors where that money will go, if they’re stupid enough to put it in his economy.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:48 pm
Mr. Pink – U mad bro?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:48 pm
JD
Delphis pensioners were UAW
Comment by EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:49 pm
“In this coming election does Patterico think Obama is still just another politician who is a good patriotic man we simply disagree with? I really sincerely want to know the answer to that.”
Mr. Pink – Have you ever considered asking if he would amend his conversation with his daughter or is that something classical liberals, true conservative, authentic conservatives, principled conservatives or whatever you douchenozzles are calling yourselves these days find beneath their dignity?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:54 pm
“Delphis pensioners were UAW”
EPWJ – Even the salaried employees, which are the pension plans in question?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:55 pm
Capysin Oblivioud AKA Pink:
Try this link
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS496&q=obama+site%3apatterico.com
Comment by EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/7/2012 @ 3:59 pm
I’m confused, Steve457. How is ignoring the bankruptcy laws materially different from re-writing them?
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:05 pm
DRJ
oh oh can I answer!!!!
Comment by EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:06 pm
.JD OT
Here’s your Cruz Candygram for the day
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2012/08/cruz-with-romney-team-accuses-obama-of-executive-arrogance/
Comment by EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:08 pm
Cruz is your issue, not mine. And the white collar pensioners that got screwed were not union. Are you ever right about anything?
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:16 pm
DRJ, rewriting laws would mean you’re replacing the current legal regime with another.
Ignoring the laws means you’re dumping the legal regime and replacing it with nothing.
Rewriting the laws would be bad enough. Having no laws is worse.
That’s just how I see it, and as I said earlier it’s just a quibble. Either way we’re heading to hell in a hand-basket. It’s pretty inconsequential what level of hell we’re descending to.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:17 pm
But did they get teh cancer and die?
Seriously, is there any limit to how loathsome the behavior of the 0bama campaign can get?
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:18 pm
Delphis pensioners were UAW
Comment by EPWJ
Typically misinformed. Some were – and they were protected – some weren’t and they were screwed.
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:19 pm
“Did they lie?”
Is water wet?
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:20 pm
Mr. Pink – Have you ever considered asking if he would amend his conversation with his daughter or is that something classical liberals, true conservative, authentic conservatives, principled conservatives or whatever you douchenozzles are calling yourselves these days find beneath their dignity?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2012 @ 3:54 pm
I really dont know what your problem is with me, but you obviously have me pegged totally wrong. But whatever have fun sucking Patterico’s dick and defending stupid comments he made 4 years ago. What are you his fucking side kick or something? BTW go get your mom in here and tell her to fix me a fucking sammich.
Comment by Mr. Pink (25b629) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:21 pm
Are you ever right about anything?
That was a rhetorical question.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:21 pm
I’m sure that was a rhetorical question, too.
Comment by Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:24 pm
0bama tries to tie a cancer victim to Romney?… fine, in the same spirit, 0bama’s responsible for every crime committed by an illegal alien.
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 4:56 pm
OBAMA: ‘I’m not the president of black America’…
Blames State, Local Govts, Congress for 14.1% Black Unemployment… http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-blames-state-and-local-governments-congress-141-percent-black-unemployment_649505.html
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:01 pm
Did they lie?
Were their lips moving?
Comment by Bill M (2f7437) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:19 pm
Thanks folks for comments concerning bankruptcy, the Indiana case, and the Obama usurpation. I take it there are points of disagreement, which may be simply different ways of looking at the same thing, Any way, what I get out of it is the bankruptcy process was violated/trumped by Obama and company, but not in a way that was explicitly “wrong enough” to do anything about it.
Perhaps it was simply that bankruptcy law did not have a phrase “and the President and executive branch can’t ignore this by claiming to make an exception”.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:27 pm
“I think that it’s [0bama's visceral hatred of Mitt Romney] very simple: it’s not that Mitt Romney was born rich, gave it away, and got rich again that infuriates Barack Obama so.
It’s that Mitt Romney had a father who loved him.
And that is a thought that fills me with a terrible pity towards Barack H. Obama, Jr.”
- Moe Lane
Comment by Colonel Haiku (cdb7fc) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:46 pm
JD
I’m see where they were salaried and the Cruzcandy was meant as a meacupla but I see you saw it as an attack which it wasnt intended to be
Comment by EPWJ (e83e82) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:49 pm
They were salaried non-union.
Comment by JD (30f261) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:50 pm
And here I thought we were through with that troll.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:51 pm
That’s fine to look at it that way. However, IMO, the Indiana State Pension plaintiffs were right and this was a blatant violation of contract law and bankruptcy law. If anyone else had tried to do this, the courts would have sanctioned them at the very least. The fact the courts didn’t is a reflection of two things (again, IMO): First, that the courts are deferential when it comes to the executive branch. And, second, that most appellate judges are not as well-versed in bankruptcy law as they are in other areas of the law.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:55 pm
It’s also an example of why Article III judges are important — because they are appointed for life and theoretically less susceptible to political pressure.
Bankruptcy judges are not Article III judges.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 5:57 pm
i see that now I missed that when I read the article
Comment by EPWJ (e83e82) — 8/7/2012 @ 6:00 pm
Wait, these are trick questions, right?
The “Is water wet” threw me for a second, but “Did they lie” was a total giveaway.
Democrats lie because they are Democrats. It is the nature of the beast…
Comment by WarEagle82 (0bcfe5) — 8/7/2012 @ 6:56 pm
Can everyone agree that “a strong academic record” is generally understood to be a modern day prerequisite for admission to Harvard Law ?
So if Obama did not benefit from the lowering of the bar for affirmative action or foreign student sympathies as he has long asserted, then he MUST have gotten good grades as an undergrad at Columbia, in order to gain admission to Harvard Law, right ?
Ok, so if he got really good grades at Columbia, why the hell is he not showing them off to us ? He’s an ego-maniac. He made a Broadway theatre production of spiking the football with Bin Laden.
If this guy had really good grades at Columbia, he’d want to show them off. But he doesn’t want to show them off.
So what is it that he’s hiding in his college records ? Is it a lackluster transcript ? Did he apply as a foreign exchange student ?
No other student from the political science department at Columbia recalls going to class with Obama during those years allegedly attended. Is it possible that Obama didn’t actually complete the coursework, yet he still obtained a “purchased” diploma through the connections he made in NYC with well-connected left wing radical academians ?
Or, did he actually not do the coursework, yet, his off-campus connections to left wing radicals in NYC were instrumental in helping him “purchase” a diploma ? (This is not unheard of, particularly involving a private school that depends on the largesse of well-to-do alumni and benefactors. It’s sometimes a tit-for-tat deal.)
Otherwise, how is it that no other political science student recalls attending class with him during those years ?
Columbia has a really good professor-to-student ratio, so in those third and fourth year poli sci courses, you tend to become really familiar with the other students within your major, especially since they’re smaller classes, and you see the same classmates over and over again.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/7/2012 @ 7:00 pm
It is funny but I remember many of the people at my university and especially those who were in my minor and major-related classes. I saw them 2 to 5 times a week for over two years. I suspect many would recall me as well after all this time.
How is it that no students at Columbia remember Barry Soetoro?
I said it a couple of weeks ago. The sum of everything Obama is hiding is far more damaging than the sum of everything Romney is hiding. Romney can destroy the Obama campaign on the “hidden records issue” unless he intentionally decides not to or is as poor a candidate as John McCain…
Comment by WarEagle82 (0bcfe5) — 8/7/2012 @ 7:08 pm
e-stone
it will be decades until we learn who this guy was and by then no one is going to care.
he was a neal rahouser a low level loser who literally fell into the presidency by an implosion by hillary and the train wreck mccain.
Comment by EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/7/2012 @ 7:13 pm
Well that, and a resume and life story like those they concoct for witness protection people.
Comment by elissa (1ad83c) — 8/7/2012 @ 7:15 pm
There is a good chance that Obama’s college records either show a name that he does not want to explain or shows him as foreign born – matching the press packet describing him as born in Kenya.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2012 @ 7:57 pm
Perhaps he obtained some special “foreign-born” privileges, a-la the 1/32 Cherokee woman.
Comment by Icy (93ceb1) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:00 pm
Elissa, e-stone, SPWR
Look they are going to lie about anything and anyone and there is no waters edge I am not telling you anything you dont already painfully know in depth and detail
Goebbels didnt do as good a job
I mean Clinton could have robbed a MCDonalds during whitewater and been caught on tape and escaped punishments by wagging his finger that it was a political and personal attack and smear and gotten away with it.
We could find tapes showing Barack telling people he was really born in Kenya and it would just be explained away as clever “editing” or as a political smear
Also finding it interesting that all those politically connected people made huge 9 figure paydays back in the exedous of the clinton rats in 2001 from paper conpanies that most CEO’s went to jail over (Terry McAullife et al) yet mitt who never ever had a McAuliffe payday is castigated
Or the Janet Sckowski scandal where her husband kited 3 million in payroll between and with donors and community organizations (2 of which had employed Obama) and Nancy used DNC funds to pqy his fine and get him a much shorter sentence measuyred in months instead of decades
You see Ephantstone
I could go on and on but most of these people are already aware of all of this
Comment by EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:09 pm
The non-existence of eyewitnesses to Obama’s presence on the Columbia campus is just so bizarre, especially considering an unusual number of Ivy Leaguers go on to do “big things.”
And while during one’s freshman and sophomore years you may take the survey courses (“Chemistry 101,” “Anthropology 101,” et al) in big auditoriums that seat 300 students, your classes within your major that are taken during junior and senior years are small classes with the same faces that you see on a daily basis since, by definition, y’all are on the same track.
Some of those classes in the social sciences and humanities involve a lot of discussion groups, and study groups, and so forth, so there’s no way not to come into daily contact with other students within your major.
For instance, just from listening to the Michael Medved Show, I know he attended Yale undergrad at the same time as John Kerry, George W. Bush, and future Clinton lawyer/confidante Lanny Davis.
Then, Medved went to Yale Law with the Clintons.
But that’s the point…there are actual living people who legitimately recall going to school with Bush, Kerry, and the Clintons (all future Presidential candidates.) even if they weren’t roommates or study buddies—they just simply recall, “Oh yeah, I remember seeing him around the quad, or we had a class or two together, but we didn’t hang out or anything.”
And everyone WANTS to be able to brag to their friends or family,”I went to college with so-and-so celebrity.”
If anyone knows someone who went to UC Santa Barbara during the early 90s, ask them if they recall seeing Gwyneth Paltrow around campus at that time—before she became famous.
There’s a lot of UCSB alums in the So Cal area who recall “the tall skinny blonde girl, Gwyneth.”
…and half the student body at UCSB is compromised of pretty thin blondes.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:10 pm
The mainstream media are so Orwellian.
Can you imagine if Mitt’s father had been a serial polygamist, and a fall-down drunk who crashed his car into a tree, resulting in amputation of his leg ?
Can you imagine if Mitt turned to a future convicted felon (Rezko) to help him buy the parcel of property adjacent to the house he was purchasing—a house he was purchasing for well below market value ?
I’m trying to come up with the equivalent to Bill Ayers, but can you imagine if Mitt had launched his first political campaign in the living room of an unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics ?
And you’re right about how they could have Clinton or Obama videotaped doing x, y, or z, and it would somehow be explained away by the media.
But that’s why the Rashid Khalidi videotape being hidden, and the college records being hidden, and the Fast & Furious documents being hidden, is such a poker-tell.
Obama knows he can get cover from the media for transgressions that are of a certain degree…but that can only mean that Obama believes the stuff on the Rashid Khalidi tape, the college records, and the Fast & Furious documents are likely too damaging for the media to ignore or gloss over.
As a result, he has no option but to bury them at the bottom of the sea in Davy Axelrod’s Locker.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:30 pm
“However, IMO, the Indiana State Pension plaintiffs were right and this was a blatant violation of contract law and bankruptcy law.”
DRJ – Spot on.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:35 pm
____________________________________________
And while he hasn’t always done good, I do believe he is fundamentally a good man and a patriot who wants to make this country a better place. And….it is a very good thing that we can say that this country is willing to elect a black President.
I’m not sure what “good man” really means, since I truly don’t know the inner-most recesses of Obama’s mind. However, for him to have sat in a church for 20 years listening to — and presumably agreeing with — radical “goddamn America” rhetoric is not someone who I’d immediately think of as a “patriot.”
Obama also turned on its head the past — and regrettable — dynamic in this society, in which a minority competing against a non-minority (ie, white) for a job not only would have to be as qualified, talented and experienced as his/her rival, he’d have to be better, perhaps far better. IOW, we’ve gone from the extreme of the past to the extreme of today.
Comment by Mark (0644af) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:47 pm
Good men and good women wake in the morning and ask “Did I do a good thing today?”
Unfortunately, the answer often seems to be “what did I do to make me feel good,” rather than “what did I do to make others better?”
The first is the lefty answer, the second is what normal people do.
Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/7/2012 @ 8:58 pm
__________________________________________
The non-existence of eyewitnesses to Obama’s presence on the Columbia campus is just so bizarre, especially considering an unusual number of Ivy Leaguers go on to do “big things.”
That’s just one of many things that makes Obama, if only from a purely symbolic standpoint, a figurehead who will forever signify a major sea change in the history of the US. However, the pathway this nation ends up on well after Obama has come and gone will remain unpredictable. That’s because either good or bad trends of general permanence won’t be obvious without the benefit of hindsight. Nonetheless, I can easily imagine the rise of Obama as the turning point when America forever lost both a certain specialness and immunity to Banana Republic-ism—or a form of Argentina-ism, Mexico-ism, France-ism or Venezuela-ism.
Comment by Mark (0644af) — 8/7/2012 @ 9:07 pm
However, IMO, the Indiana State Pension plaintiffs were right and this was a blatant violation of contract law and bankruptcy law.”
DRJ – Spot on.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2012 @ 8:35 pm
Is there no avenue to appeal because of the type of case?
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/7/2012 @ 9:32 pm
“Is there no avenue to appeal because of the type of case?”
MD in Philly – See DRJ’s comment #57. I believe the Delphi pension case is ongoing.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:13 pm
sometimes I just wanna say hey obama what’s your effing problem you stupid economy-raper
but then it passes and I sink into despondency
Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/7/2012 @ 10:31 pm
Comment by MostlyRight — 8/7/2012 @ 12:14 pm
Today an anti-Romney ad places the blame for a Stage IV cancer death of the spouse of a worker
I had thought this was breast cancer. It turns out this was lung cancer.
This is a case of leaving facts out, and hoping will fill in the blanks with things that are manifestedly not true.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/9/2012 @ 3:29 pm
Comment by EPWJ — 8/7/2012 @ 7:13 pm
he was…a low level loser who literally fell into the presidency by an implosion by hillary and the train wreck mccain.
Don’t forget his other competition: John Edwards, who fortunately for him, did not implode too fast.
And Chris Dodd. He spent a whole year running in Iowa, and even put his children in school there.
And Bill Richardson. (very left wing and never got traction)
And there was Joe Biden. He never took off.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (609c6a) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:58 am
From http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/100757/romney-attacks-obama-gm-chrysler-bailout-spin-unions
That’s a pretty skewed version of the truth. As Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research reminds me, the unions had by 2009 already made major concessions in order to help the companies restructure: Among other things, they agreed to a two-tier pay scale, changes to retiree health benefits, and changing work rules that had protected union jobs. Those changes helped the automakers reduce their hourly labor costs by nearly a third.
Then, during the bankruptcy, the unions agreed to further concessions still, on pay, vacations, job security, health benefits, and work rules. As a result, traditional Chrysler and GM hourly employees have seen no annual raises since 2003 and will see no raises until at least 2015, when they bargain the next contract.
The concessions on retiree health benefits concession were particularly significant. With health costs crippling the companies, the unions had agreed in 2007 to let the auto companies hand responsibility for benefits off to a union-managed trust fund. The idea was that the companies would put money into them – albeit at a discount of less than 70 cents on the dollar (in other words, about two-thirds or less of what the auto companies would have owed to retirees otherwise). The unions, in turn, would shoulder the risk of increasing health care costs, investment returns and benefit portfolios.
But by 2009, Chrysler and GM had no money to put into the trust funds. The only way to make the trust funds whole was to deposit company stock instead. That’s why the union trust funds ended up with so many shares in the two companies. And while Romney may consider that a perk, the workers were, and still are, taking a risk: If the companies don’t perform well, the stock won’t be worth much and the funds will have to pare back health benefits even more than they already have.
You can argue that the concessions were necessary, given what the competition was paying their workers. You can argue that the union should have structured the concessions differently. But to call the rescue a “sweetheart deal” or example of “crony capitalism” is way off the mark.
The other part of Romneys’ argument, that the unions made out better than creditors, is debatable: My recollection is that creditors got about as much money, relative to their investment, as those health care trusts got relative to their promised contributions. (The issue of salaried workers is more complicated.) But leave that aside and suppose the unions did get a somewhat better deal. So what? Another way to say that the unions got a better deal is to say that the unions got a better deal for their workers.
Prioritizing workers over investors may seem strange to the co-founder of Bain Capital. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Comment by DSanon (561676) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:00 pm
“Prioritizing workers over investors may seem strange to the co-founder of Bain Capital. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
DSanon – Sorry, prioritizing unsecured creditors before senior creditors is illegal under our bankruptcy laws.
Favoring the pensions of one set of retirees before those of another set of equivalently situated retirees is also illegal under both our pension and bankruptcy laws.
Obama blew both laws and fairness out the windows in these bankruptcy proceedings to take care of his big campaign contributing buddies. Check your facts before spewing garbage next time.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:46 pm
Daleyrocks – dsanon is a pure unadulterated sophist. Every time.
Comment by JD (04db3b) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:51 pm
David Axelros said he’s most woprried aboiuyt Pawlenty as Vice President.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/10/david-axelrod-offers-romney-vp-advice/
“If I were picking, I’d pick Pawlenty,” Axelrod told National Journal. “You shouldn’t write that, because everybody will think I’m trying to bait [Romney] into picking Pawlenty.” …
Opposition research, of course, is at the ready for everyone thought to be on Romney’s short list. But the psychological preparations at Obama’s Chicago headquarters seem geared almost entirely toward a Romney-Pawlenty ticket.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/10/2012 @ 2:19 pm