Democrats seek to lower expectations for bailout

[Yurt]

more blame and passing the buck, do the dems ever take responsibility?


Democrats seek to lower expectations for bailout

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats suggested Wednesday that a bill to rescue Detroit's Big Three automakers was stalled and challenged the Bush administration to take steps to save the industry if congressional efforts falter. The White House quickly rebuffed the suggestion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada sought to lower expectations of reaching a deal on the $25 billion proposal before Congress quits for the year.

While he told the Senate he still hoped lawmakers could agree to an auto deal in the "next day or two" of the current lame-duck session, he added: "If we can't do it here legislatively, I would hope that the secretary of Treasury would listen loud and clear because they could take this into their own hands and do what I think is appropriate from their perspective."

Responded White House press secretary Dana Perino: "There's no appetite for that." She said it was up to Congress to act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_co/congress_autos

oh no, congress must act

[retiredman]

I guess that the big three will just have to wait until after the new administration takes over and democrats have more votes in the congress. Clearly, there is bipartisan opposition to this new bailout plan... I am not sure that even after the new congress takes over, that there will be enough support for it.

[Immanuel]

I guess that the big three will just have to wait until after the new administration takes over and democrats have more votes in the congress. Clearly, there is bipartisan opposition to this new bailout plan... I am not sure that even after the new congress takes over, that there will be enough support for it.

They will probably be better off. If they wait, rather than getting a $25 billion loan, they are likely to get a $125 billion gift from the Democratic Party at taxpayer's expense of course.

Immie

[Des]

The one detail that really bothers me in this situation is that the ceo's of the companies all flew in private jets to plead for billions in bailout money.

[hjmick]

They should be denied any money from the government. File Chapter 11 and reorganize. They have spent years ignoring the trends, using outdated business models, and kowtowing to the UAW, who also bears a good portion of the blame for the current situation the automakers find themselves in. American automakers spend around $73.00 an hour per employee, non-union Japanese plants in the U.S. spend around $43.00 per employee. It's not rocket surgery. Unless U.S. automakers can change this, they will find themselves in trouble again before we know it.

[Yurt]

and when obama takes office, who are the dems going to blame then? they have blamed nearly, if not all, their failures on bush.

[retiredman]

and when obama takes office, who are the dems going to blame then? they have blamed nearly, if not all, their failures on bush.

when we have the white house and the congress, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for any failures of government. Clearly, however, government cannot fix EVERY problem that faces American businesses or American citizens. I am not sure that the failures of the car industry can be laid at any political party's feet, but should probably remain squarely on the shoulders of the auto industry's leaders.

[darin]

Interesting how economic failure while Republican President sits is HIS Fault...afterwards, it's the fault of business.

[Yurt]

Interesting how economic failure while Republican President sits is HIS Fault...afterwards, it's the fault of business.

yes, interesting indeed

[Des]

What I really want to know is- why did the ceo's take three private jets to beg congress for billions of dollars?

[Yurt]

What I really want to know is- why did the ceo's take three private jets to beg congress for billions of dollars?

so what. you think if they rode coach that would solve the problems?

[retiredman]

Interesting how economic failure while Republican President sits is HIS Fault...afterwards, it's the fault of business.


I have never suggested that the failure of the US auto industy has anything to do with President Bush. I think it has everything to do with less than visionary leadership in the auto industry.

[retiredman]

so what. you think if they rode coach that would solve the problems?


fine. then no more whining about how Al Gore gets around the globe to discuss global warming.

[avatar4321]

What I really want to know is- why did the ceo's take three private jets to beg congress for billions of dollars?

Because they know Democrats are in power and will give them tax payer money.

[Yurt]

fine. then no more whining about how Al Gore gets around the globe to discuss global warming.

apples/oranges dude, nice try

[retiredman]

apples/oranges dude, nice try


bullshit. apples and apples. Incurring the extraordinary expense of flying on a private jet for the purpose of going hat in hand to congress asking for money is no different that AL Gore flying on a private jet, creating a large carbon footprint, for the purpose of traveling to some far flung place to convince people to make smaller carbon footprints...

"dude"

[Mr. P]

What I really want to know is- why did the ceo's take three private jets to beg congress for billions of dollars?

They could have rode a horse and arrived at the end of January.

As conflicting as it may look to the man on the street, a corporate flight department is a valuable, cost saving, efficient, company asset.

[retiredman]

They could have rode a horse and arrived at the end of January.

As conflicting as it may look to the man on the street, a corporate flight department is a valuable, cost saving, efficient, company asset.

Actually, I don't doubt that for a minute.

But the same then could be said for Gore's enterprise.

[Mr. P]

Actually, I don't doubt that for a minute.

But the same then could be said for Gore's enterprise.

Nope, like yurt said, apples/oranges.

[retiredman]

Nope, like yurt said, apples/oranges.

why is it not cost saving and efficient for Gore but is for the auto execs?

[Mr. P]

why is it not cost saving and efficient for Gore but is for the auto execs?

Gore isn't claiming cost saving is he? His claim regards carbon footprints but he spreads a big one. The CEOs have cut costs and are using a cost saving efficient company asset. They're really not being hypocrites like Gore.

[retiredman]

Gore isn't claiming cost saving is he? His claim regards carbon footprints but he spreads a big one. The CEOs have cut costs and are using a cost saving efficient company asset. They're really not being hypocrites like Gore.

how can Gore efficiently travel around the world spreading his message?

and are you really suggesting that the corporate jet was THE most cost effective way for detroit CEO's to travel to DC to ask for money?

[Mr. P]

how can Gore efficiently travel around the world spreading his message?

Why does he have to travel? He could just blog..

[retiredman]

Why does he have to travel? He could just blog..


why did McCain or Obama have to actually go to different states to campaign? they could have just blogged.

[Mr. P]

why did McCain or Obama have to actually go to different states to campaign? they could have just blogged.

Again, apples/oranges.

Now, if you think I am defending the CEOs request for a bail out yer wrong. They shouldn't get it. All I'm saying is a corporate flight department IS a valuable, cost saving, efficient, company asset that most folks can't comprehend.

[retiredman]

Again, apples/oranges.

Now, if you think I am defending the CEOs request for a bail out yer wrong. They shouldn't get it. All I'm saying is a corporate flight department IS a valuable, cost saving, efficient, company asset that most folks can't comprehend.
aples and oranges? Gore traveling to speak to people about global warming is the same thing as candidates traveling to speak to voters about their candidacy.

and I do not disagree that a corporate flight department is normally a cost savings, but in this case, are you really suggesting that CEO's could not have found a less expensive way to get to DC to ask for taxpayer money?

[Mr. P]

aples and oranges? Gore traveling to speak to people about global warming is the same thing as candidates traveling to speak to voters about their candidacy.

and I do not disagree that a corporate flight department is normally a cost savings, but in this case, are you really suggesting that CEO's could not have found a less expensive way to get to DC to ask for taxpayer money?

No it's not the same when yer claiming the carbon footprint stuff and then spreading one yourself. That's hypocrisy.

The CEOs could have chosen another travel option..but they have the asset and are using it. Like I said, they should NOT get the bail out, regardless of their travel method.

[Yurt]

well, um, yeah, pretty much what mr. p said...

do you really think that if the ceo's took a horse there or coach air, that would really save the company? doesn't sound like it given you agree it is cost efficient for the company...ex: is the commodity called time

you talking about gore is apples/oranges, they are asking for a loan or bailout to reorganize yada yada, they aren't TELLING someone what they should be doing with their lives. if i told you that you should stop swearing for fuck's sake, then i would be like gore telling you to reduce your carbon footprint whle he makes gullivers footprint look like the dwarfs' footprints.

[manu1959]

aples and oranges? Gore traveling to speak to people about global warming is the same thing as candidates traveling to speak to voters about their candidacy.

and I do not disagree that a corporate flight department is normally a cost savings, but in this case, are you really suggesting that CEO's could not have found a less expensive way to get to DC to ask for taxpayer money?

people drive their cars and talk on their mobile phones to pick up their food stamps and welfare.....could they not have found a less expensive way to get to the ss office to ask for taxpayer money....

[Yurt]

people drive their cars and talk on their mobile phones to pick up their food stamps and welfare.....could they not have found a less expensive way to get to the ss office to ask for taxpayer money....

brilliant

hey its all good though, obama had over half a billion dollars and still asked for money

[Yurt]

now the news is reading yurt's thread :cool::

Finger-pointing begins as Senate nixes auto vote

WASHINGTON – A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_go_co/auto_bailout_what_s_next

[Hull]

I have never suggested that the failure of the US auto industy has anything to do with President Bush. I think it has everything to do with less than visionary leadership in the auto industry.

The fault lays squarely upon the shoulders of the UAW, and your new messiah is a lap dog to them. They'll get their money. Obama will give it to them. He owes them, and nothing will be solved. Business as usual. Yeah, real change. What a fuckin' joke.

[retiredman]

The fault lays squarely upon the shoulders of the UAW, and your new messiah is a lap dog to them. They'll get their money. Obama will give it to them. He owes them, and nothing will be solved. Business as usual. Yeah, real change. What a fuckin' joke.


that is just silly. To claim that the management of the automaking industry did not play a major role in getting them to their current situation is laughable.

[Classact]

In the House they, the Democrats are going to vote on kicking Rep Dingell off the energy committee and put Rep Waxman in charge http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/11/congressman-waxman-aims-to-cha.html Waxman is a far left environmentalist progressive Demwit that will, if appointed to the committee probably assure the Big Three are nationalized in order they can use the auto makers to do the "green only" thing. Force the big 3 to make green cars and tax the hell out of non domestic auto sales. Or, perhaps they will give $4,000 - $7,000 tax credit for buying a green auto to turn the country green.

[Kathianne]

In the House they, the Democrats are going to vote on kicking Rep Dingell off the energy committee and put Rep Waxman in charge http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/11/congressman-waxman-aims-to-cha.html Waxman is a far left environmentalist progressive Demwit that will, if appointed to the committee probably assure the Big Three are nationalized in order they can use the auto makers to do the "green only" thing. Force the big 3 to make green cars and tax the hell out of non domestic auto sales. Or, perhaps they will give $4,000 - $7,000 tax credit for buying a green auto to turn the country green.

That is what Obama wants, makes sense that the party would do such. If the Big 3 go into Chap 11, the demands of the Green may well be put paid. Two monkeys off their back, UAW present contracts and possibly legislation by those that can't but force others to do.

[Classact]

That is what Obama wants, makes sense that the party would do such. If the Big 3 go into Chap 11, the demands of the Green may well be put paid. Two monkeys off their back, UAW present contracts and possibly legislation by those that can't but force others to do.I hope the people rise up with pitchforks and torches... between green Detroit and Cap in Trade carbon taxes we will all be eating Ramyen for decades.

[Hull]

that is just silly. To claim that the management of the automaking industry did not play a major role in getting them to their current situation is laughable.

Course they did. They caved when the unions went on strike. They've also been riding high on the hog themselves. Clearly though the unions have to go, or at least be taken off at the knees, and some new faces are needed in management as well. A complete restructuring from top to bottom is needed, and I wouldn't give them a penny until I saw the plans on the restructuring.

[retiredman]

Course they did. They caved when the unions went on strike. They've also been riding high on the hog themselves. Clearly though the unions have to go, or at least be taken off at the knees, and some new faces are needed in management as well. A complete restructuring from top to bottom is needed, and I wouldn't give them a penny until I saw the plans on the restructuring.


so you admit that your statement that "The fault lays squarely upon the shoulders of the UAW" was bullshit?

thanks for that.

I still like your avatar.... I grew up in the home of John Deere.

"He gave to the world, the steel plow" ;)

[Hull]

so you admit that your statement that "The fault lays squarely upon the shoulders of the UAW" was bullshit?

thanks for that.

I still like your avatar.... I grew up in the home of John Deere.

"He gave to the world, the steel plow" ;)

No, I don't. The fault does lay squarely on the shoulders of the UAW, period, end of story. Mismanagement is secondary to that. You're welcome.

[retiredman]

No, I don't. The fault does lay squarely on the shoulders of the UAW, period, end of story. Mismanagement is secondary to that. You're welcome.

that's ridiculous. If detroit had wanted to build competitive cars, they could have done so. that's certainly not the fault of the guy on the assembly line.

[Immanuel]

that's ridiculous. If detroit had wanted to build competitive cars, they could have done so. that's certainly not the fault of the guy on the assembly line.

What are you talking about? It is always the fault of the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder. Didn't you know that? ;)

You know... shit rolls down hill.

Truthfully, you'd have to place some of the blame on the unions and the "gentlemen" who run the unions.

Immie

[Hull]

that's ridiculous. If detroit had wanted to build competitive cars, they could have done so. that's certainly not the fault of the guy on the assembly line.

It's not the guy on the assemble line. It's all the guys on the assembly line in a union.

Do you need everything explained to you two and three times?

[retiredman]

It's not the guy on the assemble line. It's all the guys on the assembly line in a union.

Do you need everything explained to you two and three times?

I really think that you are not qualified to explain anything to me, other than, perhaps, how your fryolater works. You certainly are clueless about the auto industry. By the way, is the UAW representing auto workers in Toyota and Honda plants here in the US?

[hjmick]

By the way, is the UAW representing auto workers in Toyota and Honda plants here in the US?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. The plants owned and operated in the U.S. by Japanese automakers are non-union shops.

[retiredman]

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. The plants owned and operated in the U.S. by Japanese automakers are non-union shops.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD91230F93AA25751C1A96E9482 60

there are contracts at joint venture plants.

[hjmick]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD91230F93AA25751C1A96E9482 60

there are contracts at joint venture plants.

That may have been true twenty years ago (when the article was written), and it may still hold true for joint venture plants today, but the reality is, Japanese automakers, with few exceptions, have avoided organized labor at the nearly dozen U.S. assembly plants they operate. (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070331f2.html) As recently as 2006, the Communist Party USA estimated that there are 60,000 non-union workers at Japanese plants in the U.S. (http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/766/) Overall, this is an obvious benefit to the Japanese automakers. The cold reality is, U.S. automakers will not be able to survive if they continue to spend, on average, $73.00 an hour per employee while the Japanese automakers are spending an average of $43.00 an hour per employee. (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499) Even with the disparity, the UAW can't break into the Japanese owned plants. This tells me their employees are happy with their salaries and benefits. It also suggests they recognize the downside of the union. Hell, they need only look to Detroit for that.

Something has got to give. And I don't mean the government giving them $25 billion.

[Hull]

I really think that you are not qualified to explain anything to me, other than, perhaps, how your fryolater works. You certainly are clueless about the auto industry. By the way, is the UAW representing auto workers in Toyota and Honda plants here in the US?

Quite obviously no one really cares what you think here either. You spew hatred and vulgarities here and then stand behind your church pulpit on Sundays with your vainglorious grin and preach the word of God. You're days of getting away with it are numbered. Keep that in mind.

[red states rule]

Quite obviously no one really cares what you think here either. You spew hatred and vulgarities here and then stand behind your church pulpit on Sundays with your vainglorious grin and preach the word of God. You're days of getting away with it are numbered. Keep that in mind.

I guess MFM expects a 20 year article to make his case :laugh2:

While he ignores how the Big Three spends more on healthcare for their workers (and workers who no longer work for them) then they do for the steel they buy to make their cars

Detroit can't compete with their labor costs - yet to Virgil, the unions are the victims

and libs wonder why Wal Mart refuses to allow unions to infest their company

[retiredman]

Quite obviously no one really cares what you think here either. You spew hatred and vulgarities here and then stand behind your church pulpit on Sundays with your vainglorious grin and preach the word of God. You're days of getting away with it are numbered. Keep that in mind.

don't threaten me, please. it is very unbecoming of you. This is a political message board. Do not think for a minute that taking these discussions into the real world in an attempt to harm someone's life, family or livelihood is anything that sane rational people seriously contemplate.

[red states rule]

don't threaten me, please. it is very unbecoming of you. This is a political message board. Do not think for a minute that taking these discussions into the real world in an attempt to harm someone's life, family or livelihood is anything that sane rational people seriously contemplate.

It is funny to see you get so upset over this, and yet want to surrender, appease, and worry about the "rights" of terrorists who want to kill you

[retiredman]

It is funny to see you get so upset over this, and yet want to surrender, appease, and worry about the "rights" of terrorists who want to kill you


if you could find ONE post of mine where I EVER worried about the rights of terrorists or where I EVER said I wanted to surrender to them or appease them, you would have produced it long ago..

this is just more of your tired old shopworn schtick...

nothing but lies.

[red states rule]

if you could find ONE post of mine where I EVER worried about the rights of terrorists or where I EVER said I wanted to surrender to them or appease them, you would have produced it long ago..

this is just more of your tired old shopworn schtick...

nothing but lies.

Same old lies from our resident preacher. It is a fact Virgil you get more angry over the comments of people here, then you do the slaughter committed by terrorists

You have been dreaming of the US losiing in Iraq,a nd have been worried sick about the violations of the "rights" of terrorists"

Learn to deal with the truth Virgil

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand


Is it possible the Big Three came to DC and did NOT want a bailout? Could it be that they knew they would not get the money - they go back to Detriot and tell their workers they tried but failed

Then they can go Chapter 7 and dump the union contracts that are killing the companies

[retiredman]

Same old lies from our resident preacher. It is a fact Virgil you get more angry over the comments of people here, then you do the slaughter committed by terrorists

You have been dreaming of the US losiing in Iraq,a nd have been worried sick about the violations of the "rights" of terrorists"

Learn to deal with the truth Virgil

you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up your well travelled ass. Like I said, if you could produce ONE post from me where I EVER said any of those things, you would have. But you can't. You can't even do it on a bet. I bet you $100 that you can't find one post where I EVER advocated appeasement or surrender. Put up or shut up. asshole.

[red states rule]

you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up your well travelled ass. Like I said, if you could produce ONE post from me where I EVER said any of those things, you would have. But you can't. You can't even do it on a bet. I bet you $100 that you can't find one post where I EVER advocated appeasement or surrender. Put up or shut up. asshole.

Looks like Virgil is out to try and drail another thread.

Virg, everyone knows you have demanded and dreamed of surrender in Iraq, and you have little regard for the success of the troops. It boild down to whatever your party wants - you want. Even it means a win for the terrorists and defeat for our military

Now please try to keep to the topic and post your "support" for the troops on one if the threads in War on Terror forum

[retiredman]

Back to the topic at hand


Is it possible the Big Three came to DC and did NOT want a bailout? Could it be that they knew they would not get the money - they go back to Detriot and tell their workers they tried but failed

Then they can go Chapter 7 and dump the union contracts that are killing the companies


Chapter 7 would require them to liquidate their assets to pay their creditors. At that point, they'd have killed themselves with or without a union. I owuld think that Chapter 11 would make more sense.

[red states rule]

Chapter 7 would require them to liquidate their assets to pay their creditors. At that point, they'd have killed themselves with or without a union. I owuld think that Chapter 11 would make more sense.

OK, I intended Chapter 11

They have to ditch the union contracts if they are to compete

[retiredman]

Looks like Virgil is out to try and drail another thread.

Virg, everyone knows you have demanded and dreamed of surrender in Iraq, and you have little regard for the success of the troops. It boild down to whatever your party wants - you want. Even it means a win for the terrorists and defeat for our military

Now please try to keep to the topic and post your "support" for the troops on one if the threads in War on Terror forum
you took the thread off topic by YOUR mention of this.

I made you a bet: find a post where I ever advocated "surrender" or "appeasement" and win $100. Fail to find one and pay ME $100.

puit up or shut up, asshole

[red states rule]

you took the thread off topic by YOUR mention of this.

I made you a bet: find a post where I ever advocated "surrender" or "appeasement" and win $100. Fail to find one and pay ME $100.

puit up or shut up, asshole

I pointed out the FACT you get more upset over your double life being exposed then you are over the actions of terrorists that kill innocent people and our troops

[hjmick]

Holy crap on a cracker, can we stick to the topic just once?

[retiredman]

OK, I intended Chapter 11

They have to ditch the union contracts if they are to compete

I knew that you were just blowing smoke and didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.:lol:


staying away from the bet, I see.... chicken

[red states rule]

I knew that you were just blowing smoke and didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.:lol:


staying away from the bet, I see.... chicken

In your world, the unions thugs are innocent and do not deserve any blame for the demise of the auto industry

Interesting how the Dems are all for deficit spending all of a sudden

[Hull]

don't threaten me, please. it is very unbecoming of you. This is a political message board. Do not think for a minute that taking these discussions into the real world in an attempt to harm someone's life, family or livelihood is anything that sane rational people seriously contemplate.

I've never threatened anyone in my life. Yes, this is a message board, that can viewed by anyone who owns a computer around the entire world, so if things you say here wind up biting you in the ass back in your home town, you will have no one to blame but yourself. Some people just have to learn lessons the hard way.

[retiredman]

In your world, the unions thugs are innocent and do not deserve any blame for the demise of the auto industry

Interesting how the Dems are all for deficit spending all of a sudden

in your world, you just feel free to make shit up.

I have NEVER said that the unions are innocent or that they do not bear some of the responsibility for the demise of the US auto industry. NEVER said it...NEVER thought it.

I have an idea: Why don't you take my ACTUAL words and use your OWN ACTUAL words and debate me, instead of making shit up that I never said and then attacking the made up words with shopworn Limbaugh oneliners?

How about it?

[red states rule]

in your world, you just feel free to make shit up.

I have NEVER said that the unions are innocent or that they do not bear some of the responsibility for the demise of the US auto industry. NEVER said it...NEVER thought it.

I have an idea: Why don't you take my ACTUAL words and use your OWN ACTUAL words and debate me, instead of making shit up that I never said and then attacking the made up words with shopworn Limbaugh oneliners?

How about it?

Your posts have defended the union thugs. Libs like Barney Frank made it clear - he wants to punish the auto excutives and anyone who makes over $250,000/yr

[retiredman]

Your posts have defended the union thugs. Libs like Barney Frank made it clear - he wants to punish the auto excutives and anyone who makes over $250,000/yr

as I said...I have NEVER suggested that the unions bear no responsibility.

quit making shit up.

[red states rule]

as I said...I have NEVER suggested that the unions bear no responsibility.

quit making shit up.

Like your 20 year article on unions? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

when we have the white house and the congress, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for any failures of government. Clearly, however, government cannot fix EVERY problem that faces American businesses or American citizens. I am not sure that the failures of the car industry can be laid at any political party's feet, but should probably remain squarely on the shoulders of the auto industry's leaders.


as I said...I have NEVER suggested that the unions bear no responsibility.

quit making shit up.

uh uh :lol:

[retiredman]

Like your 20 year article on unions? :laugh2:

that article never suggested that the union bore no responsibility.

Like I said...you just make shit up.

[red states rule]

uh uh :lol:

MFM sums up Obamnomics perfectly - attack and punish CEO's, corporations, and anyone who makes to much money

While giving bailouts to people who will not alter their behavior

[red states rule]

that article never suggested that the union bore no responsibility.

Like I said...you just make shit up.

Please see post # 68 - liar

[retiredman]

uh uh :lol:


I have never suggested that the union bears no responsibility.

that's a fact. I believe the lion's share of the responsibility lies with the executives who could not design and produce a high enough quality, energy efficient car, but clearly, the union contracts are a cost that the industry has incurred... they wanted to build big cars bad enough that they signed those contracts, however... it's not like anyone put a gun to their heads.

[red states rule]

I have never suggested that the union bears no responsibility.

that's a fact. I believe the lion's share of the responsibility lies with the executives who could not design and produce a high enough quality, energy efficient car, but clearly, the union contracts are a cost that the industry has incurred... they wanted to build big cars bad enough that they signed those contracts, however... it's not like anyone put a gun to their heads.

Busted and still ducking the incoming facts

US auto companies havea much higher labor cost, and the union thugs refuse to budge

Dems meanwhile blame the auto excutives and ignore the insane demands the union hacks are making

[Yurt]

I have never suggested that the union bears no responsibility.

that's a fact. I believe the lion's share of the responsibility lies with the executives who could not design and produce a high enough quality, energy efficient car, but clearly, the union contracts are a cost that the industry has incurred... they wanted to build big cars bad enough that they signed those contracts, however... it's not like anyone put a gun to their heads.


but should probably remain squarely on the shoulders of the auto industry's leaders.

:lol:

[red states rule]

:lol:

You have proven your case of perjury counselor

[red states rule]

The UAW got greedy, and that greed is what is making the auto companies unable to compete

Unions are going to become less needed. Lord Obama will give us all of us universal health care and paid sick leave. Once the government starts forcing companies to provide things that unions once fought for they are going to become obsolete.

Besides, alot of us will not have jobs thanks to Obama's economic policies so we will not have to worry about driving to work and paying for the gas that goes into our cars

[Yurt]

The UAW got greedy, and that greed is what is making the auto companies unable to compete

Unions are going to become less needed. Lord Obama will give us all of us universal health care and paid sick leave. Once the government starts forcing companies to provide things that unions once fought for they are going to become obsolete.

Besides, alot of us will not have jobs thanks to Obama's economic policies so we will not have to worry about driving to work and paying for the gas that goes into our cars

what amazes me about the UAW is that they said last week they would make no concessions. interesting. well, if the companies go under, then i guess there will be no concessions.

[red states rule]

what amazes me about the UAW is that they said last week they would make no concessions. interesting. well, if the companies go under, then i guess there will be no concessions.

As I said before, I suspect the auto execs did not want or expect a bailout. They see a chance to ditch the unions, and thus become more competive

The unions are the ones that are killing the auto industry. I read where if you add wages and benfits the hourly rate is about $70/hr

[red states rule]

and leave it to libs to say one thing about US cars - while the drive another

You can't make this stuff up


Ed Schultz's Pitch for Bailout of Detroit: Do As I Say, Not As I Drive
By Jack Coleman (Bio | Archive)
November 20, 2008 - 15:50 ET

Hypocrisy, meet Ed Schultz ... What's this, you're already well acquainted?

The nation's top-rated liberal radio host has spent plenty of time this month pitching in favor of the feds lending $25 billion to the ailing Big Three automakers.

Schultz has also been bellicose toward those who disagree with him, singling out Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama for scorn. Here's what Schultz said Tuesday after playing a clip of Shelby describing his rationale for opposing a bailout of Detroit --

SCHULTZ: Just keep in mind, that voice, his party got their ass kicked. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Sen. Shelby from Alabama is protecting interests out of this country. He's an outsourcer. And he's trying to cover it up by bringing in foreign manufacturing to his own state. It is his mission to kill the Big Three ... Look, you're either for American manufacturing, you're either for the middle class, or you're not. I have said this at every union speech I've ever given and been in front of any crowd, you're either with us or you're against us. Sen. Shelby from Alabama is a terrorist on the American worker. He is a terrorist on wage workers.

Yes, Schultz actually talks like that. This is what a strict diet of raw meat and Red Bull will do to a man.

What puts Schultz's remarks over the top is that ... wait for it ... he doesn't drive an American vehicle. Heck no, not Big Ed, as he let slip on Nov. 12 (click here for audio) --

SCHULTZ: Toyota makes a good product, I drive one, you know. I mean, c'mon now, we've drive Fords, we've driven GMs, we drive all kinds of vehicles.

When it came to Schultz acquiring his current vehicle, Ford and GM in their hour of peril didn't t make the cut, but Toyota suited him dandy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2008/11/20/ed-schultzs-pitch-bailout-detroit-do-i-say-not-i-drive

[No1tovote4]

What I really want to know is- why did the ceo's take three private jets to beg congress for billions of dollars?
Isn't this like asking why somebody who owns a Jag drives it to the supermarket?

[DragonStryk72]

Why does he have to travel? He could just blog..

so could the CEOs. Apply the point to all those using, or to none. That simple.

Anyhow, the bailout is a horrible plan, no doubt about it. Let me point this out: Companies die, they have to in order to make way for newer, better companies. Has anyone heard anything out of the East India Trading Co. lately? there's a reason for that.

I am sorry that people will lose jobs, really I am, but throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at failing businesses isn't the answer, and it as well is in no way fair in the over all sense. We would not bail out the mom & pops like this, and should not be extending such protection to one group that no other group gets.

[red states rule]

so could the CEOs. Apply the point to all those using, or to none. That simple.

Anyhow, the bailout is a horrible plan, no doubt about it. Let me point this out: Companies die, they have to in order to make way for newer, better companies. Has anyone heard anything out of the East India Trading Co. lately? there's a reason for that.

I am sorry that people will lose jobs, really I am, but throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at failing businesses isn't the answer, and it as well is in no way fair in the over all sense. We would not bail out the mom & pops like this, and should not be extending such protection to one group that no other group gets.

This is so simple. Why don't the Big Three get their labor costs down to what Toyota's and Honda's are? Why? Because the UAW won't let them.

And it's not like Toyota and Honda workers are not paid well. They are paid quite well, but they don't have "guaranteed" health care for life, and other insane deamnds made by the union thugs

Once again we see that liberalism can't see the forest for the trees because it's fixated on the idea that government and tax money are the answer to all problems.