BUsh and Big Business

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 840 AM Rational Thought wrote:

"The Administrations policy is not really pro or anti business. Nor or is it pro or anti employee. The policy is to minimize government involvement in the private sector and let the markets (consumers, employees, and investors) determine successful companies and let unsuccessful ones exit the market. That is how we have positive economic growth and better standards of living." If you want to label it anything, the appropriate label would possibly be "pro-growth", "anti-government involvement" or "pro-free market".
----------------
[/blockquote]
OK, then explain how preventing workers from allowing the market to determine their compensation as he did during the NWA, UAL PEBS and the Longshoremans dispute tie into the theory of minimizing Government interference? Come on this administration has the worst record of government interference in the airline industry than any other previous administration. Bush's pledge of "No airline stikes in his administration" is hardly indicative of a "hands off" policy.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 840 AM Rational Thought wrote:

"The Administrations policy is not really pro or anti business. Nor or is it pro or anti employee. The policy is to minimize government involvement in the private sector and let the markets (consumers, employees, and investors) determine successful companies and let unsuccessful ones exit the market. That is how we have positive economic growth and better standards of living." If you want to label it anything, the appropriate label would possibly be "pro-growth", "anti-government involvement" or "pro-free market".
----------------
[/blockquote]
OK, then explain how preventing workers from allowing the market to determine their compensation as he did during the NWA, UAL PEBS and the Longshoremans dispute tie into the theory of minimizing Government interference? Come on this administration has the worst record of government interference in the airline industry than any other previous administration. Bush's pledge of "No airline stikes in his administration" is hardly indicative of a "hands off" policy.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 9:23:01 AM BeenThere wrote:

So much for Bush and the GOP sleeping with big business

Reuters
Bush 'respects' decision to deny aid to United Airlines
Thursday December 5, 10:11 am ET

----------------
[/blockquote]

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 9:23:01 AM BeenThere wrote:

So much for Bush and the GOP sleeping with big business

Reuters
Bush 'respects' decision to deny aid to United Airlines
Thursday December 5, 10:11 am ET

----------------
[/blockquote]

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 8:03:06 AM Bob Owens wrote:

I beleive the Topic of this thread is Bush and Big Business. The fact is while Bush may have taken a stand that appears to hurt a Big Business, he has done so against Employee owned UAL at the behest of other Big Businesses. This is corporate cannibalism not a sign that Bush's loyalties have changed.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The Administrations policy is not really pro or anti business. Nor or is it pro or anti employee. The policy is to minimize government involvement in the private sector and let the markets (consumers, employees, and investors) determine successful companies and let unsuccessful ones exit the market. That is how we have positive economic growth and better standards of living. If you want to label it anything, the appropriate label would possibly be "pro-growth", "anti-government involvement" or "pro-free market".

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 8:03:06 AM Bob Owens wrote:

I beleive the Topic of this thread is Bush and Big Business. The fact is while Bush may have taken a stand that appears to hurt a Big Business, he has done so against Employee owned UAL at the behest of other Big Businesses. This is corporate cannibalism not a sign that Bush's loyalties have changed.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The Administrations policy is not really pro or anti business. Nor or is it pro or anti employee. The policy is to minimize government involvement in the private sector and let the markets (consumers, employees, and investors) determine successful companies and let unsuccessful ones exit the market. That is how we have positive economic growth and better standards of living. If you want to label it anything, the appropriate label would possibly be "pro-growth", "anti-government involvement" or "pro-free market".

 

[BeenThere]

You do realize, I was being sarcastic.

 

[BeenThere]

You do realize, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Bob Owens]

Maybe that brand new 737 loan is paying dividends.

 

[Bob Owens]

Maybe that brand new 737 loan is paying dividends.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:56:44 AM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Biased? In what way?

Ok. So the government should not pick winners vs losers amongst big businesses. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the government picking winners and losers between business interests and labor. Their actions have been clear here where time after time they use all sorts of reasons why they choose business all the time.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:56:44 AM Rational Thought wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 754 AM Bob Owens wrote:

What does this prove? He rejects one mistress at the behest of all the others. This is a struggle BETWEEN big businesses and he has chosen sides.The employees are "collateral" damage, a bonus.

----------------
[/blockquote]

A biased comment. The point is that the US government should let the market decide who has a successfull business model. And it has. It has decided not to provide UAL with any money because investors (bond holders) don't think they will get it back. Nor do equityholders have any faith in the profitability of the business. The issue is that the government should not pick winners and losers.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Biased? In what way?

Ok. So the government should not pick winners vs losers amongst big businesses. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the government picking winners and losers between business interests and labor. Their actions have been clear here where time after time they use all sorts of reasons why they choose business all the time.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 7:35:08 AM RV4 wrote:

What is ULLICO you ask?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Funny I dont remember any one asking?

It seems that Dave wants to turn this into his new RTW soapbox since no one goes to his forum any more.