# Right Flames Chevy Volt



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

"What is the connection between President Obama and the Volt? There is none. "

This is 100% election year spin. 

President Obama's administration took an unprecedented (and possibly both Illegal and Un-Constitutional) action regarding the government takeover of Government Motors - stiffing preferred stock and debt holders in favor of Union Leaders supportive of Obama's election. In support of his actions, Obama has specifically mentioned the Volt - making it fair play for those on the other side of the aisle to ridicule.

If it weren't for the rest of the $ trillion dollar porculis bill and other egregious acts of the administration, this act alone would highlight this President's actions as perhaps the most glaring disregard for our Constitution and precedent of Law in our nation's history. Those actions still stand in the top 10 violations of our countrys' charter, and no amount of spin from the Left will change those facts.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

So then why is Obama not associated with every other GM product? Why the focus only on the Volt? And why are a number of conservatives now backing away from their previous Volt and EV hatred?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> So then why is Obama not associated with every other GM product? Why the focus only on the Volt? And why are a number of conservatives now backing away from their previous Volt and EV hatred?


I'm never sure when you say things like this if you are being purposely obtuse or just don't pay attention to what the President says.

President Obama specifically mentioned the Chevy Volt by name many times as an example of the success and effectiveness of government "investments" (my note - there is no such thing as a government investment, it is a lying euphamism for pork spending) in alternative energy development.

When you make a particular product a showpiece for your style of politics in an attempt to rationalize a government takeover of a business while simultaneously negating the Rule of Law in favor by arbitrarily stealing legal ownership from one group and giving it to another group that supported you in the election, it becomes fair game to use against you. In other words, he was "politically stupid" to predict a winner, and he is now suffering the natural consequence of that stupidity.

It is just one of the many unethical and illegal actions taken unilaterally by President Obama, and it is just one of the many reasons he has to go.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

He's probably going to stay since there is no good alternative 
Do you think another president, say McCain, would have handled the GM situation any differently?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> He's probably going to stay since there is no good alternative


Well, considering Romney is nearly as Liberal as Obama I'd think the left would embrace him just to get rid of the embarrassment of Obama and let the right pretend they "won..." 



> Do you think another president, say McCain, would have handled the GM situation any differently?


I have to say that McLame is a deep disappointment to me, particularly as he is a fellow ex Phantom pilot and endured all that he did at the hands of the Commies. I think he broke, and suffers from Helsinki Syndrome - and would have been every bit as much of a Manchurian Candidate as Obama is.

Even so, he would not have abrogated contract law and simply handed over large chunks of the companys' debt to the Unions - so in that particular I suspect he would have obeyed the law and sent the issue to the Bankruptcy Courts for arbitration, which would have been the right answer.

And even though McLame is a bad example, I'm confident he would have a) vetoed Obamacare and b) would have made such a stink about the shenanigans they used to get the bill passed (I forget the specific name of the rule they used, but it was a rule meant to smooth things out when there was a SMALL financial difference between the House and Senate versions of a bill - instead it was used illegally in the middle of the night to pass trillions in unfunded liabilities) that the Congress would have been forced to pass a measure clarifying the rightful limits of that "gimmick."

But at the end of the day, the road we have been on for the past 100 years has only one end - and at worst Obama has only hurried the outcome; at best, he has been bad enough to scare the people into some sense - perhaps enough to turn us around for another generation before another Nero takes charge and fiddles while Washington burns.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I still see Obama as the only one willing to really push for a change in our energy policy. Sure there will be some mistakes along the way but alternative energy and EV's are probably the most important issue going forward, and I don't think the "market" will handle it without major prodding, since it never has. The small amount spent on EV incentives just doesn't even register compared to other wasteful spending. I'd like to see it structured differently but I'm not in charge, unfortunately


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I still see Obama as the only one willing to really push for a change in our energy policy.


That's not true at all. The Cons want to stop spending billions on lost causes since it's not really a "problem" and will fix itself in a few years. That's real change.



> Sure there will be some mistakes along the way but alternative energy and EV's are probably the most important issue going forward, and I don't think the "market" will handle it without major prodding, since it never has. The small amount spent on EV incentives just doesn't even register compared to other wasteful spending. I'd like to see it structured differently but I'm not in charge, unfortunately


And if the government gets the heck out of meddling, none of the mistakes will be theirs and perhaps they can balance their budget for a change. That's "change" you can believe in!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_simply handed over large chunks of the companys' debt to the Unions

_Lets get this straight
When I work for my salary I earn entitlement to a pension - that's what my contract says and that is part of why I accepted that job

Most companies acknowledge that entitlement by putting money into a separate fund
GM chose not to do so because...?
(So that they could claim it as profit and take a bonus???)

When my pension comes due the money to pay that exists in my separate pension fund

The money that should have been paid into that fund is MINE - and MINE before other creditors 
(wages due come out FIRST in a bankruptcy) 

The money to pay the pensions comes *first *- it has been earned by the guys who worked at GM

The other creditors took a haircut - they come after the poor slobs who actually do the work


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

The Volt is an example of alternative fuels at work, and because GM was bailed out by the government, certain people want us to think the Volt was the governments idea, and for that the Volt must die.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> _simply handed over large chunks of the companys' debt to the Unions
> 
> _Lets get this straight
> When I work for my salary I earn entitlement to a pension - that's what my contract says and that is part of why I accepted that job


Let's be clear: You have exactly as much right to a companys' assets as the net effect of ALL outstanding contracts and obligations specify. Not a penny more. Obama broke the law by arbitrarily declaring that some people's obligations were to be honored and others' were not. Period.

Also a correction - I meant "assets" not "debts," which you undoubtedly understood from the context.



> Most companies acknowledge that entitlement by putting money into a separate fund


That is a false premise. Shoulda coulda woulda... Many companies do NOT do this, and many of those are just as crooked as the conspiracy between GM and the Union turned out to be.


> GM chose not to do so because...?


They are crooks - just like those in Washington who have spent every dime from the Social Security Fund. The "pension funds" are bankrupt because they have been stolen. They are gone. 



> (So that they could claim it as profit and take a bonus???)


I absolutely agree they should all be in jail. That does not change the fact that what has already has been stolen is gone, nor does it entitle one group of people to unilaterally decree that they are the only ones who will get back a portion of what has been stolen from many.

You should be very, very careful of what you wish for. Allowing Obama (or any other tyrant) to replace the Rule of Law with the Rule of Man always ends the same way - in collapse of a society.



> When my pension comes due the money to pay that exists in my separate pension fund


You might want to check to see if that is actually true, or if your pension (like so many) has already been stolen.



> The money that should have been paid into that fund is MINE - and MINE before other creditors


They (the disenfranchised investors) feel the same way - and their contracts indicated that their debts had precedence, while the pension fund contracts did not. In many cases those disenfranchised owned those stocks as a part of THEIR retirement funds.

All that energy creating a Union, and the Union bosses could not be bothered in their cronyism with the business to ensure that their people were properly protected. Just exactly what is it that a Union is good for again? But, I believe I know the answer to that. A deal was struck with the Union leaders for higher wages NOW in exchange for a secretly unfunded / underfunded pension account not subject to oversight. The complicity is obvious, either because of actual collaboration or criminal negligence on the part of Union leaders.

By the way - this case is in no way unique. In some cases in the past, pension funds WERE in separate funds which were controlled and managed by the union. Very famous, those funds were all stolen, too... 



> (wages due come out FIRST in a bankruptcy)


Yes, wages. Not missing / stolen pension funds. *And, if this had in fact come out of a bankruptcy court I would not have any problem with the outcome.* It did not - it was instead a clear case of political corruption and overarching arrogance.



> The money to pay the pensions comes *first *- it has been earned by the guys who worked at GM


That is your uninformed and incorrect opinion. The money is gone, stolen. Who gets what is left? The investors have every bit as much right to what is left as the workers.

The situation exists because the union cooperated with the business to create an impossible Ponzi scheme. Through their nomination of Union stewards, the workers are perhaps just as much to blame as the business - and therefore possibly *LESS* entitled to a share of what remains than the defrauded investors who had no control over the business policies.



> The other creditors took a haircut - they come after the poor slobs who actually do the work


That is an opinion that suggests that stealing is OK as long as you are a "worker." What about "workers" who owned those preferred stocks as part (or even ALL) of THEIR retirement fund?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Phantom

The facts are
Pensions are part of my wages
Wages come first in bankruptcy

Everything else is just hot air


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

A 401K is part of my wages. Who should I sue each time the DOW drops?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Ziggy

You have a 401K - I used to have a fixed benefit plan - 
Two different systems 

In mine I contracted for a result

In yours you could do better than me - or worse

The equivalent is not - my 401K lost money due to the stock-market

Its - they took money out of my 401K - or lied about putting it there in the first place

In practice my pension funds are both safe - 
because both are UK based and the law is different there - 
companies are not allowed to raid pension funds and must pay into them

My issue is that due to the loony Tories policies the pound is worth less and less - so I will get less $NZ when I retire


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Phantom
> 
> The facts are
> Pensions are part of my wages
> ...


Edit: May be time to move this to the chit-chat section. /edit

I will say I find it astonishing that you would take sides with unknown workers who unquestionably had a hand in the decisions leading to the fraud.

You can call it whatever you like - but at the end of the day the way it was settled was illegal and probably not what a bankruptcy court would have decided. Everyone put faith in the company, and the company broke faith - including to many independent business owners and workers in different companies who invested THEIR hard earned money in GM as a part of a retirement package. As for your theories about pensions being part of wages, history and court precedent do not agree with you. Obama knew this and broke the law to pay back his supporters with stolen money.

It is logically impossible to envision a scenario in which the Union was not directly complicit in the fraud - either through gross negligence in their negotiations and oversight, or through direct collusion in agreeing to a fund controlled by the company and knowing that account would not be properly funded. Given that Unions represent the workers and exist solely to extort more money from companies than their labor is worth in the market, it is totally unsurprising to me that they are playing the victim in a situation they were at least partly responsible for creating...

Anyway, as I said I would have been ok with the whole thing if it had followed the rule of law, knowing as I do that the outcome would have been far different. The loss of investment money bothers me far less than the breach of trust caused by our administration's illegal power grab.


----------

