Obama blocks Boeing from manufacuring 787 planes in the USA - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13726854
Boeing has plans to manufacture 787 Dreamliner planes.

Boeing is looking to establish manufacturing assembly plants in South Carolina.

Obama is not happy with Boeing's decision. Obama's administration has therefore filled a complaint against Boeing to block production of the planes.

Why would Obama attack a company that is trying to create jobs, considering a 9% unemployment rate in America currently?

Obama is going after Boeing, because South Carolina is a "right to work" state, and has a law against forced Union membership.

Is this action by Obama dictatorship? It sure looks like it.

Never in American history, has the government told a private company where it can and cannot establish its business within the US.

Liberals love regulation of the private sector. This is the kind of regulation you get. Regulations that make it very difficult for businesses to thrive. Regulations that make startup businesses think twice about starting a new business. No new businesses, invariably means high unemployment. No wonder unemployment rate is so high in America? 3+ years into Obama's administration, things are only getting worse.

Obama being totally beholden to AFL-CIO Unions, is actually cracking down on a private business - Boeing. Obama wants Boeing to pay workers at Union rates, rather than regular market rates.

So, here's a high tech company, trying to alleviate Obama's abysmal economy, by trying to create employment for people without jobs. What is Obama's reaction? His reaction is to attack Boeing.

If this stalemate is not resolved, or resolved in favor of Obama, one of three things is going to happen...

1. Boeing would quite its plans, until Obama's socialist authoritarian administration is out of the way.
2. Obama would force Boeing to establish its plants in Washington state (a forced Union state).
3. Boeing could take its business overseas.

I believe the last option is more likely.

Is Obama interested in fixing the American economy? Or is he just interested in socializing the country?

So, on the one hand we demonize American businesses for operating overseas. But on the other hand, we refuse them the freedom to save money in America where possible. by regulating them to death. Where is the sense in that? Even US government contractors operate abroad to save money. An example is The Government Printing Office for US Passports setup in Thailand. The decision was made, because Obama's administration forces union membership on workers, and therefore too expensive operate in America.

The interesting thing here is, that a company like Boeing needs massive sums of money to run its business. Obama and Liberals hate companies making profits. So, if Obama had his way, there would be no Boeing in America, since the company would never make profits enough to justify being in business in America.
User avatar
By Fasces
#13726856
Do you think it helps your argument when you say patently untrue things?
By Quantum
#13726885
Not to mention that he has no source for these allegations and the fact that the decision has nothing to do with socialism or even liberalism but that doesn't prevent him from distorting reality.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13726887
rik wrote:3. Boeing could take its business overseas.

What, so the Obama 'socialist regime', as you are now trying to call it, was draconian enough to chase Boeing out of South Carolina, but conveniently not smart enough to prevent them from taking the plant outside your country?

So by your own admission, these guys would be doing something, and that something would not be state socialism of any sort, would it?

rik wrote:Is Obama interested in fixing the American economy? Or is he just interested in socializing the country?

If I take the content of your post at face-value (ignoring that there is no source, and that the whole thing might be made up), then apparently he is interested in neither.

Where's this supposed 'socialism'?
User avatar
By NYYS
#13727251
more accurately: http://www.seattlepi.com/default/articl ... 345345.php

This isn't Obama, it's the NLRB demanding private businesses be forced to manufacture in union-friendly areas :lol: It's basically the union trying to set a precedent that they can tell companies where to operate, and, by extension, how much they have to pay their workers. I'll enjoy watching this suit get immediately rejected.
By rik
#13727483
Do you think it helps your argument when you say patently untrue things?


Do you think it helps your argument when you fail to elucidate your argument?
By rik
#13727485
Not to mention that he has no source for these allegations and the fact that the decision has nothing to do with socialism or even liberalism but that doesn't prevent him from distorting reality.


Are you living under a rock? It's all in the news. But since you're too lazy, here's one http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243531/ns ... firestorm/

It started as bad blood between aerospace giant Boeing Co. and its unionized production workers.

But now a feud over Boeing’s decision to assemble some of its 787 jetliners at a new, non-union facility in South Carolina has mushroomed into a very public and highly political fight over outsourcing, right-to-work states and the future of the National Labor Relations Board.

The clash's outcome could hinge on whether Boeing executives publicly said more than they should have about their motivation for opening the new plant in South Carolina.

“This is a unique case,” said Ross Runkel, professor of law emeritus at Willamette University and an expert in labor law.

The battle centers around Boeing’s 2009 decision to build a second assembly line for its much-delayed 787 "Dreamliner" in North Charleston, S.C. That’s in addition to a 787 assembly line in Washington state, where Boeing also assembles its other commercial jets.

The new factory is set to open in July. But in April the NLRB, a government agency charged with safeguarding union rights, filed a complaint accusing Boeing of violating labor law in its motive for locating the work in South Carolina.

The NLRB isn't asking Boeing to close the new facility, but it does want the company to make a temporary production line in Washington state permanent.

An initial hearing is scheduled for June 14, but already the case is being discussed extensively in the court of public opinion.

Boeing has called the complaint an attack on its ability to do business freely, and Republicans are accusing the NLRB of having overstepped its bounds.

“I do not believe unelected bureaucracies should be allowed to go down the road the NLRB is charting,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a statement.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich even called for congressional Republicans to withdraw the NLRB's funding, at least temporarily.

Democrats have accused Republicans of meddling. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada called their actions “disgraceful and dangerous.”

“We wouldn't allow threats to prosecutors or U.S. attorneys, trying to stop them from moving forward with charges they see fit to bring to the courts. And we shouldn't stand for this,” he said.

The verbal sparring has been so highly charged that the NLRB recently took the unusual step of defending bringing its complaint.

“Contrary to certain public statements made in recent weeks, there is nothing remarkable or unprecedented about the complaint issued against the Boeing Company on April 20,” NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon said in a statement last month.

'It’s really about the motive for the move'
The NLRB says it doesn't object to Boeing's decision to build a second assembly plant in South Carolina. The issue, it charges, is that company executives said publicly, and repeatedly, that a major factor in the decision was two recent strikes, in 2005 and 2008, by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union representing Boeing production workers.

“If they said, ‘We’re going to move this work to South Carolina because we can’t afford to keep paying the wage in Washington, even, that would have been OK. But they can’t say it’s because of a strike, because a strike is a legally protected activity,” said Nancy Kleeland, a spokeswoman for the NLRB. “It’s really about the motive for the move, not the move itself.”
By rik
#13727486
Where's this supposed 'socialism'?


Heavy-handed control of business by government.
By rik
#13727506
This isn't Obama, it's the NLRB demanding private businesses be forced to manufacture in union-friendly areas


And what is NLRB?

A government agency charged with safeguarding union rights.

Do you know any government agency that operates independent of Obama's White House?

Furthermore, Lafe Solomon, was appointed to the NLRB board by Obama. If he wasn't toeing Obama's line, Obama would have fired him.

Whose side is Obama on? Well, let's see...

- He strongly opposed GOP's plan to repeal the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin public employees. Obama criticized Scott Walker, even though it's a Wisconsin state affair, where Wisconsin was trying to fix it's huge budget woes.

So, I think it's safe to say Obama is on the side of labor unions.

I know you're an Obama drone. But do you really approve of these job-killing policies by Obama's administration?

Perhaps more importantly, do you want to set a precedent where your government dictates to businesses where they must operate in the country?

I don't believe anybody could even defend Obama on this.
By Quantum
#13727645
rik wrote:I know you're an Obama drone.

NYYS, an Obama drone? :lol: Now I've heard everything.
By Kman
#13727655
rik wrote:Heavy-handed control of business by government.


Yep and this was how the National Socialists conducted their socialist plans also, the US is slowly turning into a fascist state.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13727661
Can anyone point out to me where the Nazism is in the United States? I can't seem to find any of the social institutions or ideological markers that would indicate that any of this has occurred.

rik wrote:Heavy-handed control of business by government.

Give me a fucking break, you have an entire government controlled by Goldman Sachs who are front-running the semi-criminal Federal Reserve, and the current US President is a guy whose father is from the Luo clan which is an East African clan, and he preaches internationalism.

Two random things, just off the top of my head, which would seem to preclude the possibility of there being any socialism, or any nazism, in the USA.
User avatar
By NYYS
#13727704
And what is NLRB?

A government agency charged with safeguarding union rights.

yeah, that's fine, and it certainly is part of the Obama administration, but everything done by the government today isn't an Act of Obama.

For the record, I have no doubt he agrees with the NLRB, but there is almost no chance he is actively in support. Saying "Obama did X" is far different from saying "the Obama administration did X." It's no different than those idiots that would point to every civilian death in Iraq and say "look what Bush did!"
I know you're an Obama drone.

I'm a registered Republican and so pro-business that I'm sure you are politically closer to Marx than you are to me. The fact that I think you're going overboard should give you an idea of how insane it is to act like Obama personally filed a lawsuit against Boeing or whatever.

Give me a fucking break, you have an entire government controlled by Goldman Sachs who are front-running the semi-criminal Federal Reserve

give it a rest... somewhere, deep down, you have to know that this is just nonsense, right? I mean I get that it's fun to say out loud, but really...
By lucky
#13732292
In the meantime, Boeing has officially opened the South Carolina plant :)

I agree the case looks very weak and I'd very surprised (and disappointed) if it succeeded. The claim is that opening the plant in South Carolina rather than Washington to avoid dealing with the labor union violates some generic federal laws about forming unions and discrimination against union members.
User avatar
By Henry Urquhart
#13732407
Is this action by Obama dictatorship? It sure looks like it.


In what way does it look like dictatorship?
User avatar
By Drlee
#13756702
National Labor Relations Board.

Chairman - Appointed By Clinton. Confirmed by the Senate. REAPPOINTED BY PRESIDENT BUSH (socialist Bush?) :roll:

Board Member - Brian Hays - most recently served as Republican Labor Policy Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Goddamn Socialist Republicans.


'It’s really about the motive for the move'
The NLRB says it doesn't object to Boeing's decision to build a second assembly plant in South Carolina. The issue, it charges, is that company executives said publicly, and repeatedly, that a major factor in the decision was two recent strikes, in 2005 and 2008, by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union representing Boeing production workers.

“If they said, ‘We’re going to move this work to South Carolina because we can’t afford to keep paying the wage in Washington, even, that would have been OK. But they can’t say it’s because of a strike, because a strike is a legally protected activity,” said Nancy Kleeland, a spokeswoman for the NLRB. “It’s really about the motive for the move, not the move itself.”


So basically Boeing got its tit in a wringer because some of its executives we so unimaginably stupid that they made these ignorant public statements. And of course rik, who could care less about getting to the truth, just runs off at the mouth while the entire premise of his argument is completely wrong. Would it have killed you to do a little research?

You will not apologize for your ignorance. You could care less about the truth.

I have asked our friend rik this time and again but here it is....By what wild flight of fancy do you believe that Obama is a socialist? He is not. Far far from it. I could make a better case for Nixon being a socialist than Obama. :roll:

Another quality post from the shallow end of the pool.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13758092
NYYS wrote:give it a rest... somewhere, deep down, you have to know that this is just nonsense, right? I mean I get that it's fun to say out loud, but really...

No, I actually believe it, do you need some evidence? We can do this right now. You are tripping balls if you think that the United States government isn't run by investment bankers and for investment bankers. :lol:

I know that you guys really get off on this narrative about how somehow the state is out to 'control the market and give all the money to poor people wah wah', but really it isn't. And I know that you know that.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13758307
No, I actually believe it, do you need some evidence? We can do this right now. You are tripping balls if you think that the United States government isn't run by investment bankers and for investment bankers.

I know that you guys really get off on this narrative about how somehow the state is out to 'control the market and give all the money to poor people wah wah', but really it isn't. And I know that you know that.


Every word true. Including the part about their knowing it.

Look at presidential and congressional contributions. Top 5 groups

Our dear conservative Speaker of the house:


Retired

Securities & Investment

Insurance

Electric Utilities

Health Professionals



McConnell largest contributions: Securities and Investment.

Obama? Funny. Look at this for his current campaign:

Individual Contributions $31,679,668
- Small Individual Contributions $21,220,058
- Large Individual Contributions $11,158,236 (23%)

Romney:


Individual Contributions $18,195,223
- Small Individual Contributions $1,103,457 (6%)
- Large Individual Contributions $17,130,766 (94%)


Gee. I wonder which one of them is more sold-out to the wealthy? Don't forget that Romney's personal fortune is estimated at north of a quarter of a billion dollars.

Follow the money. He guys? Why don't you all send $25.00 to the libertarian party. I sure it will make a huge difference. :roll:
User avatar
By NYYS
#13759104
No, I actually believe it, do you need some evidence? We can do this right now. You are tripping balls if you think that the United States government isn't run by investment bankers and for investment bankers. :lol:

Alright go nuts, let's have some evidence.
Obama? Funny. Look at this for his current campaign:

Individual Contributions $31,679,668
- Small Individual Contributions $21,220,058
- Large Individual Contributions $11,158,236 (23%)

Romney:


Individual Contributions $18,195,223
- Small Individual Contributions $1,103,457 (6%)
- Large Individual Contributions $17,130,766 (94%)

wait so people with more money have more money than people with less money? Can I see the study?

I met a guy from Nigeria, he explained me in Niger[…]

Developing the musket, though, probably did. Was[…]

I am not going to debate someone else’s perceptio[…]

...Except when they would be massacred/plundered p[…]