Americans for prosperity back at it

[Michchamp]

it's pretty nuts that Michigan even has a GOP dominated state house and senate when you think about it. That shows how far the deck is stacked.

 

[Spartanmack]

Here's a salon article that makes some other points that haven't been mentioned here about the Bankruptcy Settlement:

-“This is a settlement. This not a bailout,” [Governor] Snyder said. “And I want to be very, very clear about that.”​

This quote was already in the OP's link and of course, it's just semantics. It's a bailout of the pensioners using taxpayer money and the number according to Gulo's link is $350mm from the State, not $175mm - we don't have all the details though, maybe it's $175mm more than the original estimate and that's what they're objecting to.

- But some Michigan Republicans are tuning out the dog-whistling and Koch-whining. Foundations and arts benefactors have pledged $466 million for the deal, while the United Auto Workers and the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council have pledged to contribute to the settlement. That has won over Republicans who said they’d oppose the deal unless unions coughed up money too.​

This seems to contradict both the OP's piece and the link from Gulo - neither has any reference to union contributions other than the OP's story indicates the union may have to kick in money if the taxpayers don't bail out the pensioners. Also, why would the UAW kick in? Do they represent Detroit's public employees? They must, since Salon would never make anything up. Or maybe they just wanna help a brother out. Solidarity!

- The vote could come as early as Thursday. The GOP House Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh (no relation) believes he has the votes to at least get the bill to the state Senate, arguing the deal saves the state money in the long run. “We have conservative estimates that if we can’t reach settlement and there are more cuts to pensioners, the state will realize over 20 years over $250 million in social safety costs,” Walsh told reporters. “These are people that will fall into the social safety net, because we’re not talking about wealthy people at all. We’re talking about people who are barely making it.”​

Fairly simple math indicates the present value of $250mm over 20 years is about $156mm - that's $19mm less than what taxpayers would pay today for the settlement. If paying out $250mm over 20 years is better than $175mm now, why not do that instead?

It appears the Koch's and AFP simply want to screw over pensioners because they were in unions at some point, and of course unions are bad... socialist... communist even... Evil... the work of Satan.

This is just more of your typical unfounded nonsense - taxpayers against tax dollars going to a bailout are only motivated by their desire to screw over pensioners...stupid, but not at all surprising.

 

[Michchamp]

nothing there worth responding to; if you dispute the numbers, look them up yourself, dipshit.

 

[Gulo Blue]

?This is a settlement. This not a bailout,? [Governor] Snyder said. ?And I want to be very, very clear about that.?

The political PR guy that came up with the idea of calling this a bailout must be really pleased with himself.

 

[Spartanmack]

nothing there worth responding to; if you dispute the numbers, look them up yourself, dipshit.

I love that your standard response to facts that refute the assertions you pull out of your ass is always "nothing there worth responding to". You're forced to use that a lot. Where are the numbers dipshit? The piece you quoted said the "UAW and Construction Trades Council have pledged to contribute to the settlement" - no numbers dipshit, just some phony assertion that unions are doing their part. So I looked at the summary of the settlement that includes detail of the bailout and there isn't a single mention of union contributions. See for yourself here, dipshit...

Here's a summary of the bankruptcy adjustment.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/EM/Announcements/Summary_PlanOfAdjustment.pdf

When you're done ignoring those facts, try giving me the dipshit lawyer speak explanation as to how $175mm is less than $156mm and therefore a better deal for the taxpayer - or are you just going to stick to your 'facts that prove me wrong aren't worth responding to' nonsense? dipshit.

 

[Spartanmack]

The political PR guy that came up with the idea of calling this a bailout must be really pleased with himself.

It's lipstick on a pig - a bailout of pensioners within a bankruptcy settlement is still a bailout. Only the sheep believe that nonsense.

 

[Michchamp]

wow. you're pretty upset, idiot.

you post a lot of nonsense about confusion over what the numbers are, but still take the opportunity to talk shit... the intelligent thing to do would be to look them up. But whatever.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Here's a summary of the bankruptcy adjustment.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/EM/Announcements/Summary_PlanOfAdjustment.pdf

When you're done ignoring those facts, try giving me the dipshit lawyer speak explanation as to how $175mm is less than $156mm and therefore a better deal for the taxpayer - or are you just going to stick to your 'facts that prove me wrong aren't worth responding to' nonsense? dipshit.

Really? I post a link to the settlement summary and you have a problem with it?

Pretty clear you're confusing MC with me, but either way, of all the posts to get upset over, what's wrong with a link to the settlement details?

edit: now I see. You're quoting me, but still talking to MC intentionally. Disregard the above.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's lipstick on a pig - a bailout of pensioners within a bankruptcy settlement is still a bailout. Only the sheep believe that nonsense.

Well, at least you're calling it a bailout of pensioners instead of unions. That's a backpedal in the right direction anyway. At least you're referring to a potential recipient of money instead of one of the parties being asked to chip in. You still don't understand that it's the pensioners that are owed something. They're not the party with a debt that they can't afford to cover, but I'll recognize progress where I see it.

 

[Spartanmack]

wow. you're pretty upset, idiot.

you post a lot of nonsense about confusion over what the numbers are, but still take the opportunity to talk shit... the intelligent thing to do would be to look them up. But whatever.

Hahaha - I'm not even the least bit upset but nice try to project your own butt hurt frustration at constantly being smacked in the face with facts you can't refute. Too funny. If you actually read what I said, I merely pointed out the the fact that the article says $175mm but the summary posted by Gulo said $350mm. I actually used the smaller number (i.e. the one that makes it less expensive to the taxpayer) for argument sake - that works in your favor, dipshit. Gulo already looked them up and linked them to the thread - should I not have trusted him? And the $250mm number came from your quote - you make a good point though, I shouldn't believe you and should have confirmed that one myself.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, at least you're calling it a bailout of pensioners instead of unions. That's a backpedal in the right direction anyway. At least you're referring to a potential recipient of money instead of one of the parties being asked to chip in. You still don't understand that it's the pensioners that are owed something. They're not the party with a debt that they can't afford to cover, but I'll recognize progress where I see it.

Respectfully, didn't we already have that conversation? Again, I don't see much of a distinction...union or union pensioners, especially when the articles indicates that without the taxpayer money, the unions will probably have to kick in some cash. If you want to say I'm backpeddling when I'm using the two interchangeably, fine I don't really care as it doesn't change my argument. I understand fully that the pensioners are creditors in the bankrupcty and, similar to the other creditors in bankruptcy, are owed something - that's obvious and I never once denied that they were owed something. You keep trying to change the subject or say that I'm arguing for the other creditors instead of what I'm actually arguing for, which is the taxpayers. What you also don't seem to understand is that as investors you somehow think buyers of debt are the only ones who assume "risk". But if the argument were about who should get paid (which again, it isn't), you somehow think pensioners claims are superior because of the incorrect belief that they don't assume any risk. I don't actually know where pensioners rank vs secured and unsecured creditors but if there are creditors of equal standing who object to the union pensioners being bought off with taxpayer $ so they go along w/ the settlement, then those creditors have legitimate legal standing to fight that bailout.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I understand fully that the pensioners are creditors in the bankrupcty and, similar to the other creditors in bankruptcy, are owed something - that's obvious and I never once denied that they were owed something. You keep trying to change the subject

It's not a change of subject when I keep going back to the same point: your misuse of the word bailout. You acknowledge that pensioners are creditors in this. It is incorrect to refer to creditors as the ones being bailed out. Debtors are bailed out.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's not a change of subject when I keep going back to the same point: your misuse of the word bailout. You acknowledge that pensioners are creditors in this. It is incorrect to refer to creditors as the ones being bailed out. Debtors are bailed out.

The taxpayer money in question is going into the pension fund rather than the general fund. So this is a bailout of the pension fund whose only beneficiaries are the pensioners - it's degrees of separation, actually one degree of separation. If you don't bail out the pension fund, the pensioners claims go down with it. Hardly seems like much of a leap or even incorrect to say the pensioners are being bailed out. But if you prefer, from now on I'll say they're being "bought off" with taxpayer money to get them to go along with the settlement rather than being "bailed out" with it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The taxpayer money in question is going into the pension fund rather than the general fund. So this is a bailout of the pension fund whose only beneficiaries are the pensioners - it's degrees of separation, actually one degree of separation. If you don't bail out the pension fund, the pensioners claims go down with it. Hardly seems like much of a leap or even incorrect to say the pensioners are being bailed out. But if you prefer, from now on I'll say they're being "bought off" with taxpayer money to get them to go along with the settlement rather than being "bailed out" with it.

Would you use that language to describe any money going to other creditors, the investors?

 

[turok]

Businesses, government and unions all share the same corrupt bedding, lets get real. ALL have provided benefits and services for the citizens of this nation. I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe that most companies, in their "benevolence" would continue to provide the same level of safety, heath, salaries and benefits if unions were to disappear. They are still essentially a hedge vs corporate and government abuse of employees, regardless of whether or not they have a presence everywhere or in fewer occupations than in the past.

Maybe some people really need to crack open a history book and read about the employees working in the mining, automotive, and railroad industries, post turn of the 19th century, and the sacrifices that they made to unionize, including being injured, wounded and even killed. Unions played a large part in the creation of the 40-hour work week, vacation and sick leave, OT, better working conditions, higher wages and benefits, FLSA, and more recently, FMLA. Why anyone would think that lobbyists and pressure-funding from business in DC wouldn't result in the watering down or maybe even the elimination of these hard-won protections and benefits is beyond me. Of course, if they never have been in a union or are in management, self-employed, or a business owner, then unions might appear to be an unnecessary nuisance.

I am a proponent of fair trade, not free trade, the latter that really exists only in the US as well as to a lesser degree, a few other English-speaking nations and some European countries. Japan puts a tariff upon foreign-owned businesses that have a physical presence there, even if the products manufactured and services provided are sold or leased offshore.

OPEC nations' government still owns much if not all of their extracted crude oil. The US doesn't. When Japan began to export their vehicles to the US in the mid-70s, their products were cheap and small, and fortunately the "perfect storm" of the OPEC embargo that resulted in gas rationing and skyrocketing oil prices occurred ~the same time. Japanese automakers had next to nil legacy costs, due to a national healthcare system, lower wages, and far fewer retirees. No tariffs were placed on their imports here in the US. The domestics, although partly responsible for losing market share due to legacy costs, arrogance, and complacency, had to bend over and take it.

 

[Spartanmack]

Would you use that language to describe any money going to other creditors, the investors?

Sure. Any class of creditor that's being bought off such that their losses are less than they would otherwise be are being bailed out to some degree, no? Some more so than others I'm sure but no doubt there are plenty of creditors (vendors like printers, consultants, construction firms, outsourced services, etc) who rely heavily on City business and could even shutdown if they haven't already, due to this bankruptcy. Even some bonholders are suffering material hits to their funds and it could be made worse if their investors hit them with redemptions. But again, I'm happy to use "bought off" instead of "bailed out" if you prefer.

 

[Michchamp]

Maybe some people really need to crack open a history book and read about the employees working in the mining, automotive, and railroad industries, post turn of the 19th century, and the sacrifices that they made to unionize, including being injured, wounded and even killed. ..

nah, it's easier to just listen to the soundbites pro-business/anti-union groups like Americans For Prosperity put out there, and pat yourself on the back for being "well informed."

 

[Spartanmack]

nah, it's easier to just listen to the soundbites pro-business/anti-union groups like Americans For Prosperity put out there, and pat yourself on the back for being "well informed."

yeah, you who never argues against or even posts any facts, who reads executive summaries of studies that suit your narrative then argues with libtard platitudes and cliches, has a monopoly on being "well informed". Douche.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sure. Any class of creditor that's being bought off such that their losses are less than they would otherwise be are being bailed out to some degree, no? Some more so than others I'm sure but no doubt there are plenty of creditors (vendors like printers, consultants, construction firms, outsourced services, etc) who rely heavily on City business and could even shutdown if they haven't already, due to this bankruptcy. Even some bonholders are suffering material hits to their funds and it could be made worse if their investors hit them with redemptions. But again, I'm happy to use "bought off" instead of "bailed out" if you prefer.

I disagree. Both in the case of investor creditors and pension holders. The phrases "bought off" carries inappropriate connotations and "bailed out" is factually incorrect. Bailed out is the worse of the two because it indicates they are the ones going bankrupt. They are not. Bought off implies bribing or tampering with decisions. "Bought out" or "settled" would be more appropriate.

 

[Spartanmack]

I disagree. Both in the case of investor creditors and pension holders. The phrases "bought off" carries inappropriate connotations and "bailed out" is factually incorrect. Bailed out is the worse of the two because it indicates they are the ones going bankrupt. They are not. Bought off implies bribing or tampering with decisions. "Bought out" or "settled" would be more appropriate.

Well I disagree on both counts. If the union pensioners aren't going to go along with the settlement and the bankruptcy trustee says "what if we kick in an extra $175mm from the taxpayers just for you union pensioners so you get >95 cents on the dollar while everyone else gets WAY WAY less?" And then the union pensioners say "OK", they're clearly being bought off. If you don't like it because the legally prescribed bankruptcy procedure is being tampered with or because it makes them sound like leaches or whatever, that doesn't make it incorrect to say they're being bought off. And if AFP makes some phone calls and sends out some mailers to inform the taxpayers of what's being done with their money so they can make an informed decision about it, good for them.

As for the term bail out take the case of AIG - we were told that if AIG weren't bailed out that all kinds of banks, insurance companies and even countries that held those credit default swaps would suffer huge losses perhaps even go bankrupt, companies would shut down and tens of thousands of people would have lost their jobs as a direct result and hundreds of thousands more through the fallout as those bankruptcies set off a chain reaction. So even though they were creditors, they were also being bailed out.