Laid-off workers occupy Chicago factory, seek pay

[TR_GOP]

Gord,

Nice work changing the topic from bankers to Obama, especially since he hasn't taken office yet and all of this occurred during the Bush admin.

Blame Game Scoreboard
19 Obamas
0 Bushs
0 Bankers

 

[indago]

once again the little guys are getting screwed

The "little guys" asked for it.

On the date 27 September 1992, 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley reported on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a taxpayer funded agency, that promoted the movement of manufacturing in this country to foreign lands — El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, China, and etc. This agency actively advertised to the American companies that they could get low interest loans to close down their American manufacturing interests and establish manufacturing overseas, and at labor costs of 57 cents per hour rather than the high wages in the US.

Back in 1992, my Congressman, William D. Ford, Democrat, Michigan, sent out a flier to his interested constituents about the pending free trade agreements in the Congress, requesting our views on the legislation. I wrote back: "It is well known in this country that the United States has a well advanced economic system and society; advanced beyond the economies of some of the other countries with which we trade. Our working people are protected in the workplace by legislation which requires a safe workplace environment. Our manufacturers are required to clean discharges into the environment to limit pollution. Many working people have contracted with employers a retirement program, and health insurance. Compensations for labor have advanced commensurate with the liberties and freedoms of the Americans, allowing Americans to have a more autonomous lifestyle. The United States is being invaded by goods from foreign countries that have provided a haven to our manufacturers who wish to avoid the costs of a clean environment, and a free people. Some of these countries have manufacturers of their own who avoid these responsibilities. The Americans cannot compete on this type of "free trade" basis. To compete, the Americans would have to regress back fifty to one hundred years, a move hardly acceptable by the American people."

I mentioned also the writings of Adam Smith and Francis Hutcheson. Adam Smith, a British economist who has been quoted by American statesmen, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote, in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, "If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether...". He noted that "two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation." Mr. Smith had studied under Professor Francis Hutcheson, who had written, in his book System of Moral Philosophy, in the chapter Of the Nature of Civil Laws and their Execution: "Foreign materials should be imported and even premiums given, when necessary, that all our own hands may be employed; and that, by exporting them again manufactured, we may obtain from abroad the price of our labours. Foreign manufactures and products ready for consumption should be made dear to the consumer by high duties, if we cannot altogether prohibit the consumption;..."

What Adam Smith and Francis Hutcheson are saying is: If you do A, then B will happen.

A — Eliminate duties and tariffs on goods imported into this country from the lesser developed countries.

B — Manufactures will increase in the lesser developed countries, and will decrease in this country; some manufactures here will close down; they will move their businesses to the lesser developed countries; workers in this country will lose their jobs; the economy in this country will shrink.

Well, the Congress did A, and B happened. Congressman Ford voted against the free trade and fast track legislation, but there were too many who voted for it, and the people continued to support these legislators. So, now we will pay the price.

SENATE FREE TRADE

HOUSE FREE TRADE

On Free Trade — The whole idea of a free market is little more than a scam perpetrated on the public in order for those Few who control the wealth to take advantage of the many who work for a living. These Few are supported by an elaborate system of government sycophants whom they manipulate by means of campaign financing, and corporate media toadies whom they influence through ownership, advertising revenues and control of corporate media board seats. Executives who run the government and corporate media on behalf of the Few live largely in denial of their purpose, often deluded enough to believe they serve the public interest.

Free trade - SourceWatch

Table A-12 U-6 UNEMPLOYMENT = 12.5%

The "little guys" just luv takin' it in the ass.

BOHICA

 

[editec]

The fact is, these workers are owed money, by law and they aren't getting it. All that trying to lay it on Obama before he's even President is crap.

And I would really appreciate it if you'd quit forcing me to defend him.

Ah yes, the painful experience that all truth tellers must endore.

That's pretty much how I just felt defending BILL O'REILLY, recently.

Sticking to the truth is a dirty business, but somebody's got to do it.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm sorry but I have come to the conclusion that Banks like Bank of America that file for funds under TARP that TAKES taxpayer funds to prop up business operations and then turns around and refuses to extend credit to a business that results in the layoffs of people that PAID taxes that Bank of America took then B of A is in violation of the original intention of TARP as it was sold to the American people and should GIVE back every penny of the 25 billion they got from the Fed. Further, those workers by contract are entitled to be paid. So I don't care one wit how someone tries to spin this, those workers while yes , they may be in violation of a the law by tresspassing, they still are entitled to be paid and if they are prosecuted then BofA should not be far be behind them and should be prosecuted for getting taxpayer money under false pretenses. (i.e. fraud)

 

[Gord]

Gord,

Nice work changing the topic from bankers to Obama, especially since he hasn't taken office yet and all of this occurred during the Bush admin.

Blame Game Scoreboard
19 Obamas
0 Bushs
0 Bankers

You don't read too well do you? This is way beyond Bush and bankers. Obama has already taken ownership of this recession based on his stated platform which is scaring the crap out of companies throughout America. They will do what they deem necessary to prepare themselves for what they see as an assault by the Obama administration on their respective segment of free market.

 

[Gord]

I'm sorry but I have come to the conclusion that Banks like Bank of America that file for funds under TARP that TAKES taxpayer funds to prop up business operations and then turns around and refuses to extend credit to a business that results in the layoffs of people that PAID taxes that Bank of America took then B of A is in violation of the original intention of TARP as it was sold to the American people and should GIVE back every penny of the 25 billion they got from the Fed. Further, those workers by contract are entitled to be paid. So I don't care one wit how someone tries to spin this, those workers while yes , they may be in violation of a the law by tresspassing, they still are entitled to be paid and if they are prosecuted then BofA should not be far be behind them and should be prosecuted for getting taxpayer money under false pretenses. (i.e. fraud)

So let me get this straight. You want the banks to make the same risky loans now that got them into trouble in the first place.

 

[Navy1960]

So let me get this straight. You want the banks to make the same risky loans now that got them into trouble in the first place.

No let me help you here, these banks Citi, BofA, and many others are going to the Fed. and submitting applications for TARP funds (aka "bailout"). In BofA's case they received at least 25 Billion dollars so far. This money loaned to them is taxpayer money, you and I and even those laid off workes paid into. The whole concept of the TARP was to "Free up Credit Markets" in order to stimulate consumer and commercial lending. However, these banks like BoA have taken this money and consistantly denied scores between 650 and 700 and as well as business and used these funds for the purchase of smaller banks. Now if you and I applied for an SBA loan and used the funds to buy a new Lincoln or BMW we would be guilty of fraud as is BoA of using the TARP funds not for the intended purpose. While I don't advocate the banks make risky loans such as ARM loans and score loans with 500 and below like they did before that is NOT what they are doing. the other issue here Gord is that these workers have in essence financed the very bank that denied the company they have a contract with a loan extension. In this case BoA is not entitiled to the 25 billion and the workers are entitled to ALL of the original monies they contracted to work for.

 

[Gord]

No let me help you here, these banks Citi, BofA, and many others are going to the Fed. and submitting applications for TARP funds (aka "bailout"). In BofA's case they received at least 25 Billion dollars so far. This money loaned to them is taxpayer money, you and I and even those laid off workes paid into. The whole concept of the TARP was to "Free up Credit Markets" in order to stimulate consumer and commercial lending. However, these banks like BoA have taken this money and consistantly denied scores between 650 and 700 and as well as business and used these funds for the purchase of smaller banks. Now if you and I applied for an SBA loan and used the funds to buy a new Lincoln or BMW we would be guilty of fraud as is BoA of using the TARP funds not for the intended purpose. While I don't advocate the banks make risky loans such as ARM loans and score loans with 500 and below like they did before that is NOT what they are doing. the other issue here Gord is that these workers have in essence financed the very bank that denied the company they have a contract with a loan extension. In this case BoA is not entitiled to the 25 billion and the workers are entitled to ALL of the original monies they contracted to work for.

From the article:

The downturn in home construction doomed the plant

The article clearly states this would have been a very risky loan.

 

[xsited1]

These people need to get paid, period.

 

[Navy1960]

From the article:



The article clearly states this would have been a very risky loan.

As I stated earlier Gord, the workers at this plant contracted and worked in good faith and they need to be paid. The same needs to go for BofA, while yes the housing market is down, however because this business is suffering from lack of sales based on that market and cannot get credit because of those sales I would completely understand that. However, in this case the bank we are talking about has taken money that we the taxpayers gave them to Free up credit in order to stimulate those markets. So if this business had defaulted thats one thing, but in BoA's case if they intended to draw from the TARP then they should have understood what it was intended purpose was. If they cannot loan at ALL or are so restrictive on loans then they defeat the purpose of the TARP. However they are not even doing that, they are using the funds for other purposes and at the same time turning down loan applications that are market based with public funds.

 

[Gord]

As I stated earlier Gord, the workers at this plant contracted and worked in good faith and they need to be paid. The same needs to go for BofA, while yes the housing market is down, however because this business is suffering from lack of sales based on that market and cannot get credit because of those sales I would completely understand that. However, in this case the bank we are talking about has taken money that we the taxpayers gave them to Free up credit in order to stimulate those markets. So if this business had defaulted thats one thing, but in BoA's case if they intended to draw from the TARP then they should have understood what it was intended purpose was. If they cannot loan at ALL or are so restrictive on loans then they defeat the purpose of the TARP. However they are not even doing that, they are using the funds for other purposes and at the same time turning down loan applications that are market based with public funds.

The plant was "doomed". That is an even worse case scenario than the subprime loans that caused this credit crisis in the first place. You are simply asking the bank to be a proxie for a government bailout. So when the bank goes back to the government in a year's time looking for another hundred billion dollars to make up for all of their lost "doomed" company loans, you will enthusiastically endorse it? I think not, from your attitude toward the banks that you have illustrated on this thread. You would be outraged that they wanted even more! The bank could then legitimately accuse you of hypocricy...

 

[Navy1960]

The plant was "doomed". That is an even worse case scenario than the subprime loans that caused this credit crisis in the first place. You are simply asking the bank to be a proxie for a government bailout. So when the bank goes back to the government in a year's time looking for another hundred billion dollars to make up for all of their lost "doomed" company loans, you will enthusiastically endorse it? I think not, from your attitude toward the banks that you have illustrated on this thread. You would be outraged that they wanted even more! The bank could then legitimately accuse you of hypocricy...

Actually I am not a supporter of BAILOUTs in any form at all. However as these funds have already been approved and been paid out by the Fed. and the intent was to "Free up Credit Markets" I suggest they be used for that pupose rather than to defraud the American tax payers and use the money for purposes that only the bank see's fit use them for. These are not funds these lending institutions have earned these are funds that taxpayers , (those workers) paid into the Fed. that are being used by banks that deny loans with them now. If you had read what I posted earlier then you would have found that I am not advocating subprime loans , or loans that are quote "risky" such as those with scores below 500 to 600. What I am suggesting though if any purpose that these funds are used for beyond the purpose of "Freeing up Credit" and that included making loans to business and individuals is an attempt to defraud the Fed. Govt. The very nature of lending is "risk" that risk is offset by the borrowers ability to pay it back and how much collateral the borrower comes the the table with. So I fail to see how my arguments for BoA's criminal actions here border on hypocricy when BoA made the decision to take my money to lend with or supposedly lend with. If BoA should so decide to go back for more money let me tell you what my poistion would be, not only would I say reject that, I would also say , that BoA should return every dollar they borrowed from TARP as they have not used the funds as they were intended nor has Citi, not has the many other banks that have gotten funds from the TARP. If a company qualifies for a loan regardless of what market they happen to be in and have the ability to pay it back and have demonstrated a past ability to do so then they SHOULD be approved a loan. If BoA wants to be in a business where they have zero risk then I suggest they should not be in the banking business.

 

[Gord]

Actually I am not a supporter of BAILOUTs in any form at all. However as these funds have already been approved and been paid out by the Fed. and the intent was to "Free up Credit Markets" I suggest they be used for that pupose rather than to defraud the American tax payers and use the money for purposes that only the bank see's fit use them for. These are not funds these lending institutions have earned these are funds that taxpayers , (those workers) paid into the Fed. that are being used by banks that deny loans with them now. If you had read what I posted earlier then you would have found that I am not advocating subprime loans , or loans that are quote "risky" such as those with scores below 500 to 600. What I am suggesting though if any purpose that these funds are used for beyond the purpose of "Freeing up Credit" and that included making loans to business and individuals is an attempt to defraud the Fed. Govt. The very nature of lending is "risk" that risk is offset by the borrowers ability to pay it back and how much collateral the borrower comes the the table with. So I fail to see how my arguments for BoA's criminal actions here border on hypocricy when BoA made the decision to take my money to lend with or supposedly lend with. If BoA should so decide to go back for more money let me tell you what my poistion would be, not only would I say reject that, I would also say , that BoA should return every dollar they borrowed from TARP as they have not used the funds as they were intended nor has Citi, not has the many other banks that have gotten funds from the TARP. If a company qualifies for a loan regardless of what market they happen to be in and have the ability to pay it back and have demonstrated a past ability to do so then they SHOULD be approved a loan. If BoA wants to be in a business where they have zero risk then I suggest they should not be in the banking business.

A "doomed" company would not even qualify for a subprime loan. It would be insane for a bank to make this loan. It would not be repaid. While the workers' plight is tragic it is not the bank's responsibility to pay the workers.

 

[Navy1960]

A "doomed" company would not even qualify for a subprime loan. It would be insane for a bank to make this loan. It would not be repaid. While the workers' plight is tragic it is not the bank's responsibility to pay the workers.

I think Gord we are talking about two seperate things here, as you and I do not know all the factors involved in the decsions made by BoA in the denial of the loan , which from my understanding they had made in the past. My position is simple these workers are owed that money by contract from the company they worked for regardless of where that company gets the money from . However, if the company cited the fact that BoA cut their line of credit as a reason for having to fire the 200 workers then it appears that BoA thought them worthy as a risk to extend a line of credit in which payroll was met with. BoA's repsonsibility here, they have access to the TARP in which these workers paid taxes into and the entire purpose of the TARP is to Free up Credit. This situation is not one in which it appears BoA has a subprime borrower that has defaulted but rather a business they have decided to reduce their LOC.

 

[Gord]

I think Gord we are talking about two seperate things here, as you and I do not know all the factors involved in the decsions made by BoA in the denial of the loan , which from my understanding they had made in the past. My position is simple these workers are owed that money by contract from the company they worked for regardless of where that company gets the money from . However, if the company cited the fact that BoA cut their line of credit as a reason for having to fire the 200 workers then it appears that BoA thought them worthy as a risk to extend a line of credit in which payroll was met with. BoA's repsonsibility here, they have access to the TARP in which these workers paid taxes into and the entire purpose of the TARP is to Free up Credit. This situation is not one in which it appears BoA has a subprime borrower that has defaulted but rather a business they have decided to reduce their LOC.

Well if that is the case then I would concede you that point. But if the company is "doomed" it would be foolish to loan them more money.

 

[Navy1960]

Well if that is the case then I would concede you that point. But if the company is "doomed" it would be foolish to loan them more money.

I would not honestly advocate loaning the company more money unlesss they can prove an honest way in which they can pay it back. However the fact that BoA has in the past entended this LOC and it was used for payroll and the fact that BoA has about 25 Billion in TARP funds it seems a little dishonest on part of BoA to simply deny the LOC out of hand. Perhaps BoA could have approached this situation a little better, for example, knowing the company was in a down market could have allowed for a one time LoC extention for the purpose of meeting it's payroll obligation to these workers to meet the contracts. This to me seems within the scope and spirit of the TARP and is in fact helping this company in a time of need rather than forcing it into insolvence and at the same time holding onto public taxpayer dollars to the tune of 25 Billion dollars.

 

[editec]

Indago just did something special here, folks.

He (she?) just showed those of you foolish enough to have bought into the myth that FREE TRADE was a theory that Adam Smith signed onto, that that is NOT true:

Adam Smith, a British economist who has been quoted by American statesmen, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote, in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, "If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether...". He noted that "two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation." Mr. Smith had studied under Professor Francis Hutcheson, who had written, in his book System of Moral Philosophy, in the chapter Of the Nature of Civil Laws and their Execution: "Foreign materials should be imported and even premiums given, when necessary, that all our own hands may be employed; and that, by exporting them again manufactured, we may obtain from abroad the price of our labours. Foreign manufactures and products ready for consumption should be made dear to the consumer by high duties, if we cannot altogether prohibit the consumption;..."

What American has been doing and did ALL during the cold was was EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Adam Smith told us was the sane thing for a NATION to do.

I point this out because the supply siders have for YEARS, been telling us that Adam Smith believed in FREE TRADE.

He didn't.

Not EVER.

What he did believe was that it would be foolish for a nation to try to make itself capable of producing AGRICULTURAL goods that didn't flourish easily in that land.

He was, (and his writing so often parsed out so that it appears to be saying exactly the opposite of his intention) an ECONOMIC NATIONALIST.

His prosciption to allow imports without tariffs was meant to address the question of whether or not ENGLAND should try to grow CORK and GRAPES.

It had absolutely NOTHING to do with importing manufactured goods.

 

[Gord]

Indago just did something special here, folks.

He (she?) just showed those of you foolish enough to have bought into the myth that FREE TRADE was a theory that Adam Smith signed onto, that that is NOT true:



What American has been doing and did ALL during the cold was was EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Adam Smith told us was the sane thing for a NATION to do.

I point this out because the supply siders have for YEARS, been telling us that Adam Smith believed in FREE TRADE.

He didn't.

Not EVER.

What he did believe was that it would be foolish for a nation to try to make itself capable of producing AGRICULTURAL goods that didn't flourish easily in that land.

He was, (and his writing so often parsed out so that it appears to be saying exactly the opposite of his intention) an ECONOMIC NATIONALIST

Who cares. FDR proved that tariffs and closed trade borders are a disaster.

 

[editec]

Who cares. FDR proved that tariffs and closed trade borders are a disaster.

You don't know what you're talking about Gord.

I don't really blame you for not understanding this issue, since you and the rest of American have been fed nothing but one fucking lie about economics after the other.

But at least NOW you know that the Adam Smith FREE TRADER myth is a lie, right?

 

[dilloduck]

No one is looking at the whole picture of what just happened concerning what is being called the economy.

The only thing anyone can do at this time is work at putting the people back to work.

You put out a lot of stuff in that post with no substance so people can really understand what has actually happened to this so called economy.

It is not a Bush or Obama thing, a Dem or Rep thing.

No it's not----it's a global financial "thing" that Americans have no choice in. Sorta like electing a president.