The King of Bain - When Mitt Romney Came to Town

[Howey]

loss of 30,000 jobs from GM.

GM's laying off 30k? When? 2005?

Perhaps your comrades at Newsmax got the numbers switched? Most likely, they probably use the Fox graphics guys.

It’s been a while since we’ve heard good news out of Detroit, but things may starting to be looking up for the U.S. auto industry, as analysts from the Center for Automotive Research announced today that the Big Three — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — are likely to add 30,000 hourly and salaried employees in the U.S. by 2015.
 
According to an article by the Detroit Free Press, the projected good news should also spread to auto manufacturers in general: total employment for all U.S. automakers and suppliers will increase over the next four years by about 28%, or from 590,000 to 756,000. We’ve still got a ways to go to achieve the great heights the U.S. industry enjoyed a few decades ago — in 1978 total employment for GM, Ford and Chrysler was at 1 million, compared to less than 200,000 in 2010 — but all indications are that the tide has turned.

From what I hear they're still hiring, reopening plants and selling more cars than they have in years.

Thanks King Obama!

http://popculturedoneright.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1050.msg10301.html#msg10301

[lil mike]

GM's laying off 30k? When? 2005?

Perhaps your comrades at Newsmax got the numbers switched? Most likely, they probably use the Fox graphics guys.

From what I hear they're still hiring, reopening plants and selling more cars than they have in years.

Thanks King Obama!

http://popculturedoneright.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1050.msg10301.html#msg10301

Actually, I got my numbers from the New York Times.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/auto_industry/index.html

Really Howey, you're actually trying to pass off projected jobs as actual jobs?

That would be deceptive if it wasn't so obvious!   I guess this pile of inaccuracy you'll count in your "win" column?

Man it's like shooting fish in a barrel...

[Howey]

Actually, I got my numbers from the New York Times.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/auto_industry/index.html

WTF? So you're using an updated  article from 2010, two years ago? Scared to find anything more recent? Nevahmind...Didja know the 30k jobs you cited were also from Ford? Who didn't get a bailout???

From your article:

Ford announced a restructuring plan it called "The Way Forward" that involved shedding 30,000 hourly jobs and 14,000 salaried workers

The article also has glowing praise for the auto industry. Example:

By the spring of 2010 the entire automotive industry was on the rebound, and G.M. said it expected to return to profitability for the year. By the summer, G.M, which had already repaid a $6.7 billion loan, was talking about going public in the fourth quarter, a move that would give the government a way to slowly sell its majority stake in the company's stock. The first models of the all-electric Volt also began rolling off the production line.

But you didn't need to include that in your wholesale dismissal of the entire American auto companies, didja?

Just why do you hate American auto workers so much? Are you Japanese or something?

[Howey]

Really Howey, you're actually trying to pass off projected jobs as actual jobs?

Ok!

The Michigan economy surprised forecasters this year, adding more jobs than expected. Even better: many of those jobs have been high-paying auto and professional positions.

The state will end the year with a gain of 63,000 jobs, according to a new forecast from the University of Michigan. That's only the second time since 2000 the state added more jobs than the year before, and well above the gain of 38,000 jobs in 2010...


Fulton credits the faster pace to Michigan's auto industry, which created 25,000 jobs this year and 19,000 in 2010. It's a big change from the years when the auto industry's painful restructuring cost Michigan jobs in industries that served carmakers and their workers.

"Once Michigan's curse, the manufacturing sector has become its blessing," Fulton said.

More from the WSJ:

Auto makers capped 2011 with a strong December and forecast the recovery in U.S. sales would intensify as long as a stabilizing economy and improved U.S. job gains continue to encourage shoppers. Detroit auto makers reported increases in vehicle sales for December, with Chrysler Group LLC posting a 37% rise, Ford Motor Co. citing a 10% gain and General Motors Co. reporting a 4.6% increase. For the full year, Chrysler's sales rose 26%, Ford's 11% and GM's 13%.

All told, auto makers sold 1.2 million cars and light trucks in December, a rise of 8.7% from the same month in 2010, according to Autodata Corp. Light vehicles sales for all of 2011 totaled 12.8 million, Autodata said, an increase of 10.3% from 2010.

The annualized sales pace in December was 13.56 million vehicles, the second highest of 2011. It also marked the fourth consecutive month in which the sales pace topped 13 million, a positive sign for 2012.

Want some more, lilHiro?

From McClatchey:

WASHINGTON — After a near collapse at the height of the Great Recession, the streamlined U.S. auto industry defied the odds and outperformed the greater economy this year with solid sales increases, job growth and product innovations that signal that a full industry recovery no longer is just possible, but probable.           

Credit better quality and pent-up consumer demand for the industry's slow, steady improvement. Customers who were unwilling to gamble on automobile purchases during the recession are coming back to showrooms because the average age of vehicles on U.S. roads is more than 10 years — the highest ever.

   U.S. car buyers also are getting comfortable with making large purchases in the volatile economy, experts say..           

   "And that's a big behavioral change from what we saw in '08 and '09. That's good for the industry," said Jesse Toprak, the chief industry analyst for TrueCar.com, an auto-pricing website.

   After selling roughly 11.8 million cars and trucks last year, U.S. vehicle sales to businesses and consumers are expected to hit nearly 12.8 million in 2011, Toprak said. That's up from 10.6 million at the height of the Great Recession in 2009.

Now I see why you had to go back four years for bad news. It was Dubya time!

[ekg]

Finally, an ad you don't want to see banned!  Too bad it's not based on love of free expression or the first amendment, but heh, at least we can agree on one thing!

I expect to see some King of GM ads this fall, since the King of GM forced on GM a reorganization (which you have been wildly supportive of) that resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs from GM.

All hail the King!

uh.. what?

from your link


Tougher competition was only one of G.M.'s problems. In 2005, it stunned the auto world by losing $10.4 billion. It embarked on a reorganization plan that included plant closings and the elimination of 30,000 jobs. G.M. maintained that its turnaround program was showing results, but in the second quarter of 2008, it reported a loss of $15.5 billion (which followed a $3.3 billion first-quarter loss) and announced additional job cuts.

that loss was in 2005.. so why do you have a photo of Obama as King George instead of GWB?


4 in the "I guess this pile of inaccuracy you'll count in your "win" column?"

[lil mike]

WTF? So you're using an updated  article from 2010, two years ago? Scared to find anything more recent? Nevahmind...Didja know the 30k jobs you cited were also from Ford? Who didn't get a bailout???

I was interested in how many workers lost their jobs due to the reorganization of GM.  That took place in 2009.  So what’s wrong with using a 2010 article?  If I had wanted to spend more time on it, I would have looked for a source from 2009.

And no, I didn’t confuse the numbers with the Ford numbers!  You are so on the wrong track!

From your article:
 

the spring of 2010 the entire automotive industry was on the rebound, and G.M. said it expected to return to profitability for the year. By the summer, G.M, which had already repaid a $6.7 billion loan, was talking about going public in the fourth quarter, a move that would give the government a way to slowly sell its majority stake in the company's stock. The first models of the all-electric Volt also began rolling off the production line.

But you didn't need to include that in your wholesale dismissal of the entire American auto companies, didja?

Just why do you hate American auto workers so much? Are you Japanese or something?

That point, although valid, had nothing to do with why I posted this information on GM in this particular thread and wasn’t relevant to the point I’m making.  I want you to think about what you think my point is and why I posted it in this thread.

And of course more demagoguery from you!

Ok!

More from the WSJ:

Want some more, lilHiro?

From McClatchey:

Now I see why you had to go back four years for bad news. It was Dubya time!

OK I can see you still don’t know why I posted this in this thread!  You many need more than a few moments to figure that out!

uh.. what?

from your link


Tougher competition was only one of G.M.'s problems. In 2005, it stunned the auto world by losing $10.4 billion. It embarked on a reorganization plan that included plant closings and the elimination of 30,000 jobs. G.M. maintained that its turnaround program was showing results, but in the second quarter of 2008, it reported a loss of $15.5 billion (which followed a $3.3 billion first-quarter loss) and announced additional job cuts.

that loss was in 2005.. so why do you have a photo of Obama as King George instead of GWB?


4 in the "I guess this pile of inaccuracy you'll count in your "win" column?"

You, ekg are correct!  I did get the wrong numbers, and you accurately saw where I got them.  So you get a cookie.  Howey doesn’t since he thought I got the numbers from the Ford section when I did get them from the GM section, but you are correct that I copied the wrong numbers.  The correct numbers  (from that same section) are 21,000 jobs.

Now, I could wait and wait to see if you guys could figure out on your own why I posted this GM info in this particular thread, but I think that since I’ve emphasized that throughout this post you probably have all the pieces you need to put the puzzle together.

OK well Howey was going in the wrong direction but I’ve given enough clues now.  Any guesses?

[Howey]

That point, although valid, had nothing to do with why I posted this information on GM in this particular thread and wasn’t relevant to the point I’m making.

What? That you're Japanese? Or that you hate American auto companies? Of course, it may not be either, since your intention is to "not make Obama look bad".

That point, although valid, had nothing to do with why I posted this information on GM in this particular thread and wasn’t relevant to the point I’m making.  I want you to think about what you think my point is and why I posted it in this thread.

Oh. I knew where you're going with this. You're trying to tell us that Obama was a venture capitalist who bought and sold companies and enjoyed firing the workers, just like Mitt!

Except he didn't. #1, the majority of the bailout came from Bush, Obama just added to it out of TARP, secondly, many of the companies Mitt fucked over (well, actually the employees he enjoyed firing) just ceased to exist, and thirdly, in your desire to "make Obama look good", you don't mention anything at all about the benefits of the bailout; like how many jobs it saved. That's "more than 1 million jobs in the car industry, supply chain, and communities where auto workers spend their paychecks".

Nor do you make mention of the fact that upon emerging from bankruptcy, GM added 45,000 jobs. I believe that's 15k more than were lost. See page 4.

Not to mention my earlier post about the booming auto business last year, projected to boom even more this year.

So, unfortunately, the dessimation of the auto industry didn't happen. Unlike the dessimation of thousands of lives of folks fired by Mitt and his greedy partners.

Your point? FAIL!

[Howey]

Just kidding, lilMike. 

[ekg]

You, ekg are correct!  I did get the wrong numbers, and you accurately saw where I got them.  So you get a cookie.  Howey doesn’t since he thought I got the numbers from the Ford section when I did get them from the GM section, but you are correct that I copied the wrong numbers.  The correct numbers  (from that same section) are 21,000 jobs.

Now, I could wait and wait to see if you guys could figure out on your own why I posted this GM info in this particular thread, but I think that since I’ve emphasized that throughout this post you probably have all the pieces you need to put the puzzle together.

OK well Howey was going in the wrong direction but I’ve given enough clues now.  Any guesses?

Oh I knew why you posted it here..I just didn't know why you posted the wrong information... but I'll answer you anyway, it's because you're selling  the 'Mitt had to restructure companies at Bain to make them more successful the same way Obama did with GM"  line... well you go on with your bad self.. too bad it's apples and oranges, since I would bet Bain did this and fired a whole lot more people than 21,000..

but hey look, you're finally a Mitt-man. I'm happy to see you get behind your Presidential candidate. You never struck me as his kind of guy, but you do waffle a lot so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at your conversion..

[ekg]

the spring of 2010 the entire automotive industry was on the rebound, and G.M. said it expected to return to profitability for the year. By the summer, G.M, which had already repaid a $6.7 billion loan, was talking about going public in the fourth quarter, a move that would give the government a way to slowly sell its majority stake in the company's stock. The first models of the all-electric Volt also began rolling off the production line.

That point, although valid,

so you finally admit the bailout worked? Good.

[Howey]

Oh I knew why you posted it here..I just didn't know why you posted the wrong information... but I'll answer you anyway, it's because you're selling  the 'Mitt had to restructure companies at Bain to make them more successful the same way Obama did with GM"  line... well you go on with your bad self.. too bad it's apples and oranges, since I would bet Bain did this and fired a whole lot more people than 21,000..

but hey look, you're finally a Mitt-man. I'm happy to see you get behind your Presidential candidate. You never struck me as his kind of guy, but you do waffle a lot so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at your conversion..

He can't support  Paul anymore since the Libertarians have been outed. It's much easier to support a nincompoop than a racist.

[ekg]

He can't support  Paul anymore since the Libertarians have been outed. It's much easier to support a nincompoop than a racist.

I don't know that Paul is a racist.. I think he's more of  "you should be able to serve who you want, it's your business not the gov't".. and that's not from a racist mentality, it's from a guy-living-on-a-mountain-with-1000-cases-of-MRE's-waiting-for-the gov't-takeover mentality..

he can't support Paul because he's not a true libertarian.. he's ok with giving the president any power he needs to fight wars, even if that power is illegal wiretapping..along with fighting wars,illegal or otherwise.... you can't believe in that and call yourself a Ron Paul libertarian..

[lil mike]

What? That you're Japanese? Or that you hate American auto companies? Of course, it may not be either, since your intention is to "not make Obama look bad".

Demagoguery

Oh. I knew where you're going with this. You're trying to tell us that Obama was a venture capitalist who bought and sold companies and enjoyed firing the workers, just like Mitt!

Except he didn't. #1, the majority of the bailout came from Bush, Obama just added to it out of TARP, secondly, many of the companies Mitt fucked over (well, actually the employees he enjoyed firing) just ceased to exist, and thirdly, in your desire to "make Obama look good", you don't mention anything at all about the benefits of the bailout; like how many jobs it saved. That's "more than 1 million jobs in the car industry, supply chain, and communities where auto workers spend their paychecks".

Nor do you make mention of the fact that upon emerging from bankruptcy, GM added 45,000 jobs. I believe that's 15k more than were lost. See page 4.

Not to mention my earlier post about the booming auto business last year, projected to boom even more this year.

So, unfortunately, the dessimation of the auto industry didn't happen. Unlike the dessimation of thousands of lives of folks fired by Mitt and his greedy partners.

Your point? FAIL!

Oh I knew why you posted it here..I just didn't know why you posted the wrong information... but I'll answer you anyway, it's because you're selling  the 'Mitt had to restructure companies at Bain to make them more successful the same way Obama did with GM"  line... well you go on with your bad self.. too bad it's apples and oranges, since I would bet Bain did this and fired a whole lot more people than 21,000..

but hey look, you're finally a Mitt-man. I'm happy to see you get behind your Presidential candidate. You never struck me as his kind of guy, but you do waffle a lot so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at your conversion..

Sometimes the Socratic method can work, albeit only partially.

So yes, you’ve made the connection between Obama restructuring GM and Bain taking over and restructuring companies.  In both cases, employees lost their jobs during the restructuring, with the hope that the firms could be saved and restored to profitability.  So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

Sometimes it’s just quicker to directly just tell you the truth, but on occasion I try to see if you can parse that out yourselves.  It’s difficult to get through your partisan blinders though.

[ekg]

Demagoguery

Sometimes the Socratic method can work, albeit only partially.

So yes, you’ve made the connection between Obama restructuring GM and Bain taking over and restructuring companies.  In both cases, employees lost their jobs during the restructuring, with the hope that the firms could be saved and restored to profitability.  So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

Sometimes it’s just quicker to directly just tell you the truth, but on occasion I try to see if you can parse that out yourselves.  It’s difficult to get through your partisan blinders though.

wow.. you really do think that highly of yourself don't you?

but this..

So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

hilarious... But coming from a Romney man? Predictable..

btw, how many jobs did Romney cut anyway? We know Obama's is 21,000.. would you like to match Mitt's up with that number? and are you saying every one was done for the same reason GM's were done?

[Howey]

Demagoguery

Socratic method

Gee. They're teaching you the big words in the asylum, aren't they?

So yes, you’ve made the connection between Obama restructuring GM and Bain taking over and restructuring companies.  In both cases, employees lost their jobs during the restructuring, with the hope that the firms could be saved and restored to profitability.  So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

Talk about missing a point!

Again. A n d  I ' l l  s a y  t h i s  r e a l  s l o w.......................................

Obama did not bail out the automakers. That was Bush.

Dec 22 2008

The auto-industry bailout saga came to an end, at least temporarily, on December 19th, 2008, when President Bush announced a $13.4 billion bailout from TARP funds. While still against the notion of using TARP funds for such a bailout, the President acknowledged the unique circumstances affecting the Detroit auto companies and the disastrous consequences that could result from their disorderly bankruptcies.

Of course, the Obama administration had to administer the loans. Unlike many of Mitt's companies, they didn't go belly up and as I've show you 45k, more than the number you cited, have returned to work. Not to mention (again) the success of 2011 and projected success of 2012.

Mitt's companies enjoyed a bankruptcy rate over twice of other companies and never rehired all those thousands of workers fired.

Most of all, and most importantly, I don't recall Obama making 190 million out of firing people, did he?