Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate GOP: Let Us Destroy UAW, Or We'll Destroy the Economy (375 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Amazing Thread (2+ / 4-)
    Recommended by:
    TexasLiz, Jon Says
    Hidden by:
    LordMike, jds1978, Fossil, ProgressiveMan

    not a single comment about throwing good taxpayer money after bad.

    This bailout will not save Detroit from the consequences of decades of stupid managerial and union decisions. Its just money down a rat hole. It won't save the UAW, they are beyond saving.

    •  Apparently You're Unable To Discern... (6+ / 0-)

      ...the difference between a loan and a grant.

      You may want to go back to the beginning before you again show your ignorance.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But if they are essentially insolvent now... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geotpf, Jon Says

        what will they pay the loans back with?

      •  Lots of People Stuck on Stooopid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        schnecke21, Go Kid Hugo

        ...over this, DHinMI

        They've bought into the Reaganoid Labor Hate, Bigtime.

        Or they hate Detroit....because we have a bad football team or their 1982 Buick was a POS.

        Or they are stuck on things like the Jobs Bank (all 3,000 workers).  Thanks, FUX "News"  

        Trying to talk sense to them is near pointless.

        "iTz MAH MoNEYzz$11!!!"

        ....Except that once you pay taxes it's all of our Money now....to be used as the Congress and Executive see fit.

        "Go Away! I'm tired of the horrible things that happen when you're around." - Charlie the Unicorn

        by jds1978 on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 01:38:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  or that it's a bad bill (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, daisycolorado

          this is suspiciously Republican in its framing: "If you don't support this then you must just hate X."

          Isn't it possible that some people understand that throwing money weakly at a problem does not solve that problem, or even necessarily forestall it for any real length of time?

          LoadedOrygun.net--Oregon's Progressive Community

          by torridjoe on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Way to rational (0+ / 0-)

            what are you doing here?

          •  Well, in theory... (0+ / 0-)

            ...failure of this bill means that both GM and Chrysler go bankrupt immediately (and, as a practical matter, then go completely out of business).  It's unclear if that's actually true or just a scare tactic, but it certainly is possible.

            Of course, if your business is so screwed up that you need a $14 billion donation from the government just to keep the lights on, it's highly unlikely your company will last for very long unless you get frequently, consistant injections from the government forever and ever amen.

            •  You confuse bankruptcy with liquidation (0+ / 0-)

              Bankruptcy does not mean these businesses disappear. It means they have protection from their creditors to restructure their businesses to make them profitable. The airline industry has flown in and out of bankruptcy repeatedly and many of the former bankrupt companies are still flying.

        •  I don't hate labor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf

          I just hate seeing taxpayer money being given to incompetents.  We might as well flush it down the toilet for all the good it will do.

          To give money to the auto companies and expect anything in return is the very definition of stuck on stupid.

          And your definition of government and taxpayer money sounds absolutely authoritarian.  

          •  How much do you think it will cost the Fed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fossil

            ...and State governments in unemployment and pensions should the Big 3 fail this winter?

            Any clue?

            It will be lot more than 30 billion dollars.

            Plus, non of these newly unemployed workers will be paying taxes

            Uh-Oh

            ***********************************************

            Here's a refresher on Federal Taxation in the United States

            (From the US Constitution)

            Article I/ Section VII

            All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

            Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

             

            Article I/ Section VIII

            The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

            To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

            *****************************************************

            I'm not sure if you understand this, but $30 billion is not much money in terms of Federal Spending.

            Have you ever seen a Defense Bill? How about an Emergency Appropriations Bill for any of our overseas wars?

            The question isn't "Should We Spend Money?"

            It's "What Do We Want Our Money Spent On?"

            I have plenty of problems with how taxes are spent.

            For example:  Why are we continuing to develope expensive Real Estate in Flood/Hurricane/Earthquake zones?  That stuff is going to be destroyed....guranteed.  Building Golf Courses and Condo's in Florida is a bad idea.  Granted, the initial capital comes from investors and owner....but the reconstruction comes out of Insurance Pools and Federal Funds

            However, I'm not about to start pointing my finger at the people of South Florida for choosing to live there.  Thats their choice and they deserve infrastructure and economic developement.

            What if I were to take your view and said "Fuck South Florida...Fuck Los Angeles....they knew disaster "X" was going to happen.  Why did they build their McMansion there?"

            I can't do it though....that's how Republicans think

             
            ****************************************************

            Which brings us back to the Big 3.

            Despite what you may believe, these companies have made deep cuts in their workforce.

            The Unions accepted major concessions in their contracts regarding pay and benefits.

            Their new car line is Green and they have (finally) gotten into a 21st century mindset.

            Oil is not cheap and plentifull, so their cars are going to use far less of it

            Reliability is way up from the 1980's (see any JD Power report from the last 10 years)

            Productivity is very high

            I'm just really glad this crisis happened now and not last year.  bV$h wouldn't think twice about destroying the industrial Midwest

            "Go Away! I'm tired of the horrible things that happen when you're around." - Charlie the Unicorn

            by jds1978 on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 03:29:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point is (0+ / 0-)

              you are throwing good money after bad.

              $14 billion will not be the end of it. Nor will it save GM. You are putting a band aid on a gapping chest wound. It simply puts off the day of reckoning. There is way too much capacity in the auto industry for the level of customer demand. Someone has to go out of business, either now or in the very near future.

      •  You can call it anything you want (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geotpf

        its actually a loan guarantee but it will never be repaid and when GM and the others file for BK there will be nothing left for taxpayers.

        The only ignorance I see here is yours.

    •  Obviously YOU'RE beyond saving! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, dewley notid, Go Kid Hugo

      Dont complain when jobless americans start kicking in front doors because they cant feed their families.

      Better DEAD than red!

      by AfroPonix on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You better believe this ... (4+ / 0-)

      Is going to work its way through the industrial heartland from the top down and through every supplier. It's more about savings people and families now. Remember the Rust Belt '80s? That's got nothing on where we're headed with our current situation.

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

        this is just going to put off the day of reckonng a few months.

        And there is nothing about bankruptcy that does not allow a business to continue to operate. In fact, bankruptcy is exactly what these businesses need in order to get their costs in line with their revenues.

    •  Your Anti-Union Bias is Showing (7+ / 0-)

      It won't save the UAW, they are beyond saving.

      Even before 1980, when union busting with no consequences really took off, republicans were working to hamstring the ability of workers to form unions.  Enormous legal barriers are erected and used very avidly by industries to block unionization at every point, even illegal actions that remain unpunished.  It is no wonder, in this time when the unions are more relevant than ever, that they are struggling to the point where you can state that the UAW is beyond saving.

      Professionals have licensing associations sanctioned by states, but for a union to expect membership within a site just chafes the ass of republicans and trailer-trash alike.

      I rely indirectly on what the unions have gained since the last depression for the quality of my life and have seen manufacturing in Asia or other developing countries and would not change my life for theirs.

      Troll, your smug attitude is disgusting.

      •  Amen, my labor brother or sister (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, Dirtandiron, Go Kid Hugo

        The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

        by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is nothing smug (0+ / 0-)

        about being reality based.

        The UAW has been bleeding members for 20 years. They remind me of William Buckley circa 1955 who said he wanted to stand in the path of history and yell STOP.

        Unions are sadly less relevant today than at any time in the past 50 years. Were it not for the unionization of government workers the whole movement would have dried up and blown away by now.

        Unions thrived in an era of standardize labor when one worker was interchangable with another. That day has long passed.

        Wake up and smell the coffee.

        •  Which is why... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fossil, Dirtandiron, Go Kid Hugo

          ..with nonstandardized labor we've seen a rise in median income and people are doing better regardless of income?  Oh, wait, median income has declined at roughly the same percentage as the decline of unionization.  It's almost like something even a moron would notice...oh wait, you didn't notice.

          "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

          by Mister Gloom on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Median income (0+ / 0-)

            has continued to grow over the past 30 years despite the decline in unionization.

            Median real wages have been stagnant as more of the work force has become salary based and more of the compensation has shifted from wages to benefits. Get your facts straight before you make your arguments.

        •  When is bias "reality based? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dirtandiron

          Get real.  Until you even have a historical perspective of labor in America and the abuses that are now allowed by corporations such as Wal-Mart, your opinion is as useful as tits on a snake.

          Union busting activities and programs lead to distortions that suppress union membership.  This has been happening since the time of early union organization.  In the early days this was done by vigilantes and the government which used every excuse, even to the point of using the espionage act, to fight the IWW's resistance to World War One.  This physical threat is still ever present for offshore labor. Just ask the Maquila workers.

          More genteel ways of fighting unions in the US is used nowadays.  Chafing against the Wagner Act (NLRA), wealthy stockholders finally hit paydirt with the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, just one of 250 anti-labor bills that year.  T-H gives employers significant advantages in fighting and denying union representation in their facilities.  This is augmented by entities like Jackson Lewis LLP; training management how to lie to employees about unions, how to frighten employees so they don't join unions, how to stonewall negotiations with unions or how to fire union organizers without legal repercussions.  Is it no wonder that a general anti-union meme exists in our culture?  Especially when anti-union administrations deliberately avoid enforcing laws favorable to union organizing success.

          This is exacerbated, most gleefully by neo-liberal globalists who have wealth on their side promoting the destruction of American manufacturing and wildly distorted trade policy.  Since 1972, there has been deliberate government neglect in addressing predatory trade whether issues are brought up by industry or labor.  Regardless of how egregious economic warfare is practiced by currency manipulation, dumping, or outright trade fraud, administrations since Ronny (brain dead) Reagan have failed, many times deliberately, at representing American manufacturing interests.  

          The distorted differences in reactions to bailing out Wall Street vs. Manufacturing is evidence of a continued bias of wealth over labor and the privatization of wealth and socialization of risk.  All of this, combined with a more subtle discounting of science, engineering and manufacturing skills by distorting the interests of wealth over that of labor enforces any perception that unions are not relevant.

          Your argument sounds like a "post-hoc ergo propter-hoc" distortion.  To put it more simply, it is similar to republicans claiming that government does not work by misgoverning to the point where they create a dysfunctional government that they point to as proof of their statement.

    •  ....... and the horse you rode in on. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, Go Kid Hugo
    •  ahem (0+ / 0-)

      OK?

      LoadedOrygun.net--Oregon's Progressive Community

      by torridjoe on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site