Bailouts Exceed Combined Costs of All Major US Wars

[aznyron]

I guess it the 9 to 5 worker fault that we have to bail out all these rich corporations because of unions who only make up about 5 % of the nations work force

The examples of abuse within the UAW are well documented.

No one in America is against an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. =D>

WBU how much is a honest day work for a tradesmen like heavy construction carpenter ? how much is honest day pay for a insurance salesman or office worker or a computer programmer ? let have some feed back.
as for the auto bail out I don't know if GWB did the right thing all I can do is guess and I hate to say
agreed with his decision my reason are the domino effect to many people will lose there jobs

[aznyron]

please read Git post on the baht he posted a news article would fit in here perfectly

[WBU ALUM]

WBU how much is a honest day work for a tradesmen like heavy construction carpenter ? how much is honest day pay for a insurance salesman or office worker or a computer programmer ? let have some feed back.
as for the auto bail out I don't know if GWB did the right thing all I can do is guess and I hate to say
agreed with his decision my reason are the domino effect to many people will lose there jobs

Capitalism is based on supply on demand. Those components also include wages and benefits.

Because these auto makers are going bankrupt, it is apparent that the goods produced and paid labor exceeds what the public is willing to pay. The union wages agreed to by the auto makers, in addition to the products that have less demand than other auto makers, is the reason for the failure of the businesses.

If they made excellent products and practiced good business sense in paying for their labor and benefits, there would be no need for any loans or bailouts.

The honest days wages would be whatever the market can bear. The market has not been able to sustain these wages. Would BK or McDonald's be able to maintain their profitability if they agreed to pay wages like those paid to UAW? No company would be able to be profitable by paying wages at a rate that far exceeds what the market would bear.

People lose their jobs when businesses aren't successful. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact in capitalist economies. In the case of the UAW, they have CONTRIBUTED to the unprofitability of the auto makers. It is difficult for me to feel sorry for them.

[aznyron]

you answered me like a true politician. so if honda starting paying there non union workers 50 bucks a hour and still made money would it still be the fault of the UAW ? BTW most big corporations pay there employees close to union wages to attract good employees since they do not have union protection
against age discrimination etc

[WBU ALUM]

you answered me like a true politician.

No, spoken like a capitalist. Wages are determined by what the market will bear.

After Hurricane Katrina, people left the city and many did not return. There was a huge demand for labor because businesses could not re-open without a staff. BK and McDonald's were paying workers as much as $10 an hour to start and cash bonuses to come to work. The demand for food and fast food was such that the market could bear the high wages and high prices of the product due to the scarcity of the product.

You couldn't arbitrarily raise wages like that Huntington, Indiana. Their market could not bear it. The same exact economic components of supply and demand do not exist everywhere.

If food was being provided through others at a cheaper price, the demand would have been met and BK and McDonald's could have opened and paid high wages if they wanted to, but people wouldn't buy there if a better product was provided elsewhere at a cheaper price. In this scenario, BK and McDonald's represent the US auto makers. They provide a product that is thought to be not as good as competitors and is too expensive; but they keep paying higher wages and operating at a loss. Why should Americans bail them out? Americans have already spoken at the cash register. They don't buy US cars as much as they used to buy them. Time to file for bankruptcy and restructure and retool.

so if honda starting paying there non union workers 50 bucks a hour and still made money would it still be the fault of the UAW ? BTW most big corporations pay there employees close to union wages to attract good employees since they do not have union protection
against age discrimination etc

The UAW is responsible for their members only.

If Honda could still make a profit by paying what US auto makers pay their employees (and don't forget the benefits, which is the HUGE drag on the US auto makers), then that would mean that the market will bear it for their automobiles.

It all works hand-in-hand. Labor is the highest, the absolute highest, cost of doing business in the US. If labor prices itself too high and the demand for the product that they build is low, the company will not make a profit. Wages need to match the profitability of the company and the product or service provided in the region.

[Pakawala]

You don't need the union to protect you against age discrimination, you have Federal Law to protect you.

[laphanphon]

you have Federal Law to protect you

not necessarily for age discrimination, but try to collect benefits from some of these agencies when you need, deserve and paid for them.

there is also workmans' comp, social security, private insurance..............all of which i had to sue to receive the benefits i paid for and deserved. the shortest took 2 years, the longest 5 years. first 2 years without any income what so ever. luckily i was winding down to a planned retirement when it hit the fan, and as irresponsible as possible. i was single and about to retire, but try that with a family of 4, mortgage, car payment, and no income. don't forget, you have to pay the lawyer to sue everyone, did i mention no income. the system is not there for you, it is completely against you. this of course is just my own personal experience. 2 out of 3 lawsuits were against federal sponsored and regulated programs.

[aznyron]

LA I know exactly what you are talking about I also was a victim of those so called programs except
I could not sue because of workers compensation laws but it ok for them to cut your weekly benefit in 1/2 and expect you to sit home when they send there investigators out to check on you and god forbid if they see you mowing your lawn kiss your money good bye until the law judge orders them to pay you retroactive money and to continue the benefits at 50% reduction. they seem to forget that the laws are all in favor of big corporations and the only avenue we wage earners have is strong unions to fight them other wise we would be like the thai working for 100 bucks a month with out benefits I guess they never saw the movie HOFFA & FIST and they never talk to there Grand fathers if they were blue collar workers they just don't get it they came in to this world with golden spoons paid for with the blood of there grand parents how soon they forget they even vote republican working man worst enemy WBU quotes the Constitution were in the Const. is there laws pertains to labor there is NONE so it a fight for your rights to be paid a living wage not a cootie wage like the Republican want you to work for and pass laws so you have no choice but to accept there crumbs and then when things go sour they blame labor cost they should GET REAL and stop smoking that wacky weed

[WBU ALUM]

WBU quotes the Constitution were in the Const. is there laws pertains to labor there is NONE so it a fight for your rights to be paid a living wage not a cootie wage like the Republican want you to work for and pass laws so you have no choice but to accept there crumbs and then when things go sour they blame labor cost they should GET REAL and stop smoking that wacky weed

Do you know why there is nothing in the Constitution about labor? It's because government shouldn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT! We have a capitalist system.

There should not even be a minimum wage. If the wage doesn't suit the worker, go someplace else or move. That is what determines wages, NOT LAWS and NOT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

I want people to make the most that their economic market can bear and is willing to pay. I also want them to be able to keep their money and not be forced to give it to someone else via the government.

[aznyron]

WBU I found a issue I agree with you I don't want government interfering with my hourly wage
I also don't want Government interfering with union contracts between labor & management
because with out government involvement we will win over any corporation as for minimum wage
I think we do need that because unskilled people will be abused I also don't want the Police involved
in breaking up strikes they are there only to keep it orderly. you see when I was younger and some one crossed the picket line he did it only once he never did it again he knew better the only way a corporation could win is to close there plant or move out of the USA and it will be more than mere 5 % union workers it would be over 50% if the Government stay out of that business but Corporations need the Government to implement laws in protecting them not us

[WBU ALUM]

as for minimum wage
I think we do need that because unskilled people will be abused

The only people abused through wages today are those who allow it to happen to themselves.

Get more training. Get more education. Move to another part of the country. Change jobs. There are too many opportunities for Americans today for any worker to allow themselves to be abused respective to their wages. In other words, they need to get off their a55es and stop whining for government to rescue them.

[Pakawala]

To quote Ron, "close there (sic) plant or move out of the USA". This is exactly what has been happening and now the workforce is complaining because there are no jobs available in the US. So you've actually acknowledged that it is the UNIONS that have driven the corporations away from our borders.

Congratulations Ron, you've finally seen the problem of having too much Union control.

[aznyron]

[aznyron]

I decided to answer my own post with only about 5 % of the nations blue collar work force belonging to unions and with all the legislation against organized labor your way off the mark in blaming Unions for
Corporations going abroad. IT all about cheap labor no benefits and no taxes Now if you want my opinion I would charge a tariff for goods from multi nation corporations since they do not have any alliance to any country so therefore
there is no trade agreement with them this will help our tax base in the revenue lost from these scum bag companies
who only interest is there pocket book they have no love for the USA only contempt for us they are also responsible for
coup in small countries to get there people in high public office and to keep the local citizens in check and fear of retaliation from police now if you don't believe this do a google search and find out the truth. I am tired of defending America work force if your love is so great for these scum bags then why call your self American

[banpaeng]

WBU I found a issue I agree with you I don't want government interfering with my hourly wage
I also don't want Government interfering with union contracts between labor & management
because with out government involvement we will win over any corporation as for minimum wage
I think we do need that because unskilled people will be abused I also don't want the Police involved
in breaking up strikes they are there only to keep it orderly. you see when I was younger and some one crossed the picket line he did it only once he never did it again he knew better the only way a corporation could win is to close there plant or move out of the USA and it will be more than mere 5 % union workers it would be over 50% if the Government stay out of that business but Corporations need the Government to implement laws in protecting them not us

This is totally repulsive. Who died and left the Union in charge. What gives them the right to break laws and prevent someone to go to work. It is your right to strike but it is also ones right to go to work without some bullies seeing a person after work.

You keep harping about it is only 5% of workers whom are union. Gee do you reckon this is sending a message? Are you saying the unions are not full of corruption?

Like I have said before I am not against unions. I worked in a union shop. I just do not take all the union rhetoric for truth and look myself. I also respect others which the union DOES NOT!!! It is the "my way or the highway" in the union halls.

The union can be very retarded also. I did a bit of work for the Gov't about safety policies. There were companies that participated and the union was ask to join in the process. This was for personnel safety during an emergency.

The union showed up for two meetings and had the mentality of "if we can not be in charge, we will leave" and they did. I really can say they had their members safety in mind :-" .

I have said this before that everyone has the right to their own opinion however there is always a different side.

[BKKSTAN]

What?No forum union?

[WBU ALUM]

How, you may ask, was the president able to give the auto makers money after Congress had voted against doing so? Because CONGRESS gave the president the authority to do so with the TARP money.

Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Final Blow Against Congress
by George Will

WASHINGTON -- A new Capitol Visitor Center recently opened, just in time for the transformation of the Capitol building into a tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters. The center is supposed to enhance the experience of visitors to Congress, although why there are visitors is a mystery.

Congress' marginalization was brutally underscored when, after Congress did not authorize $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, the executive branch said, in effect: Congress' opinions are mildly interesting, so we will listen very nicely -- then go out and do precisely what we want.

Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize. More money -- up to $17.4 billion -- than had been debated, thereby calling to mind Winston Churchill on naval appropriations: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight."

The president is dispensing money from the $700 billion Congress provided for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The unfounded assertion of a right to do this is notably brazen, given the indisputable fact that if Congress had known that TARP -- supposedly a measure for scouring "toxic" assets from financial institutions -- was to become an instrument for unconstrained industrial policy, it would not have been passed.

If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules. This lawlessness tarted up as law explains the charade of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Republican senators that if they did not authorize the $14 billion, the GOP would again be regarded as the party of Herbert Hoover.

Surely Cheney, a disparager of Congress and advocate of extravagant executive prerogatives, knew that the president considered the Senate's consent irrelevant.

Evidence that casualness about legality is inherent in big government is found in H.W. Brands' new biography "A Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." FDR became president on Saturday, March 4, 1933. Banks were closed that day and the next, temporarily preventing panicked depositors from withdrawing their money. At 1 a.m. Monday, FDR ordered all banks closed for four days, hoping that the fever would break. His act may have been prudent. But was it legal? Brands writes:

"He cited a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act as justification. The act had never been formally repealed, but a body of legal theory held that the law, along with other wartime legislation, had expired upon the signing of the peace treaty with Germany in 1921."

FDR had asked the opinion of his as-yet-unconfirmed attorney general, Montana Sen. Thomas Walsh, who gave the answer FDR wanted. Walsh never had to defend this: He died March 2 en route to the inauguration.

The expansion of government entails an increasingly swollen executive branch and the steady enlargement of executive discretion. This inevitably means the eclipse of Congress and attenuation of the rule of law.

For decades, imperatives of wars hot and cold, and the sprawl of the regulatory state, have enlarged the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. For eight years, the Bush administration's "presidentialists" have aggressively wielded the concept of the "unitary executive" -- the theory that where the Constitution vests power in the executive, especially power over foreign affairs and war, the president is immune to legislative abridgements of his autonomy.

The administration has not, however, confined its aggrandizement of executive power to national security matters. According to former Rep. Mickey Edwards in his book "Reclaiming Conservatism," the president has issued "signing statements" designating 1,100 provisions of new laws -- more designations than have been made by all prior presidents combined -- that he did not consider binding on him or any other executive branch official.

Still, most of the administration's executive truculence has pertained to national security, where the case for broad prerogatives, although not as powerful as the administration supposes, is at least arguable. With the automakers, however, executive branch overreaching now extends to the essence of domestic policy -- spending -- and traduces a core constitutional principle, the separation of powers.

Most members of the House and Senate want the automakers to get the money, so they probably are pleased that the administration has disregarded Congress's institutional dignity. History, however, teaches that it is difficult for Congress to be only intermittently invertebrate.

[banpaeng]

George is making it 100% disapproval rating before he leaves

[WBU ALUM]

George is making it 100% disapproval rating before he leaves

Not quite. The Democrats and Ron will like GWB for doing this.

[banpaeng]

Maybe you want to help also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC0qcf0kzE