Ron Simpson said:There have been "give backs" by the Union for years now. General Motors states that labor accounts for 6%-8% of the vehicle cost. Hardly excessive. The $25 billion would be taken from the $700 billion already appropriated for the financial "rescue". In other words, it will not cost any additional money. The fact is, they are spending $700 billion to rescue the companies responsible for our financial mess. I think it would be a travesty to not divert 4% of that $700 billion to save God knows how many blue collar jobs. Ralph
No, we DON'T want to "assist" ("bail-out") our hopelessly screwed-up auto manufacturing sector. It is the excessively-high labor costs that we would be subsidizing and all for naught anyway. It is highly unlikely that these dinosaurs can survive even with public assistance which would go mostly to fund uncompetitive labor contracts. It would be throwing good money we don't have after bad.
Ron Simpson said:Mark Verbrugge said:
I believe that as long as the Republican party continues to support the BS of trickle down economics they will continue to lose election after election. I am beyond fed up with those clowns taking my hard earned wages and giving them to billionaires so they can throw expensive parties and toast expensive wine to my foolishness. I used to vote Republican most, now I'm embarased by their behavior.God knows we would not want to assist our heavy manufacturing sector, a group that actually builds a product of tangible value. We’d rather hand it out to the money lenders who give us nothing but forclosures and bankrupcy. Screw 'em.
No, we DON’T want to “assist” (“bail-out”) our hopelessly screwed-up auto manufacturing sector. It is the excessively-high labor costs that we would be subsidizing and all for naught anyway. It is highly unlikely that these dinosaurs can survive even with public assistance which would go mostly to fund uncompetitive labor contracts. It would be throwing good money we don’t have after bad.I don’t know exactly what you mean by “trickle-down” economics because the phrase has come to mean more than one thing. However, if you mean going back to “progressive” taxes–those that punish investors and take away money for investment–that will KILL the economy for sure. At least the Dems will have nobody to blame but themselves because it is ALL in their hands now, isn’t it?
Not until Jan 20th.
I found the original quote by Warren Buffett.
There’s class warfare, all right,’ Mr. Buffett said, 'but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.
His comment from the past seems appropriate considering the Republicans don’t want to share 4% of the $700 billion earmarked for the “rescue” with the automakers. It appears saving blue collar jobs is not a priority.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:Since this is a Democratic Party pet project, you will probably get your wish. After all, the unions PAID for this when they supported Barrack Obama and his lineup in the Democratic-dominated Congress, didn't they?Ron Simpson said:There have been "give backs" by the Union for years now. General Motors states that labor accounts for 6%-8% of the vehicle cost. Hardly excessive. The $25 billion would be taken from the $700 billion already appropriated for the financial "rescue". In other words, it will not cost any additional money. The fact is, they are spending $700 billion to rescue the companies responsible for our financial mess. I think it would be a travesty to not divert 4% of that $700 billion to save God knows how many blue collar jobs. Ralph
No, we DON'T want to "assist" ("bail-out") our hopelessly screwed-up auto manufacturing sector. It is the excessively-high labor costs that we would be subsidizing and all for naught anyway. It is highly unlikely that these dinosaurs can survive even with public assistance which would go mostly to fund uncompetitive labor contracts. It would be throwing good money we don't have after bad.
Ralph Berg said:BUT labor costs for the Big Three are far more expensive than that of the other auto manufacturing plants in the South. All of this can be sorted out by forcing the auto manufacturers into bankruptcy. As it now stands, even with a bail-out, odds are that bankruptcy will loom in the not-so-distant future because not enough people are buying those products anymore. Might as well let it happen now rather than throw 25 billion down the drain.Ron Simpson said:There have been "give backs" by the Union for years now. General Motors states that labor accounts for 6%-8% of the vehicle cost. Hardly excessive. The $25 billion would be taken from the $700 billion already appropriated for the financial "rescue". In other words, it will not cost any additional money. The fact is, they are spending $700 billion to rescue the companies responsible for our financial mess. I think it would be a travesty to not divert 4% of that $700 billion to save God knows how many blue collar jobs. Ralph
No, we DON'T want to "assist" ("bail-out") our hopelessly screwed-up auto manufacturing sector. It is the excessively-high labor costs that we would be subsidizing and all for naught anyway. It is highly unlikely that these dinosaurs can survive even with public assistance which would go mostly to fund uncompetitive labor contracts. It would be throwing good money we don't have after bad.
Ron Simpson said:The labor cost are insignificant. As I said, the Unions have been making concessions for years. The experts that follow the industry say that GM has made all the right moves. Once the recession is over they expect GM to be highly profitable. Ford and Chrysler are not too far behind.Ralph Berg said:BUT labor costs for the Big Three are far more expensive than that of the other auto manufacturing plants in the South. All of this can be sorted out by forcing the auto manufacturers into bankruptcy. As it now stands, even with a bail-out, odds are that bankruptcy will loom in the not-so-distant future because not enough people are buying those products anymore. Might as well let it happen now rather than throw 25 billion down the drain.Ron Simpson said:There have been "give backs" by the Union for years now. General Motors states that labor accounts for 6%-8% of the vehicle cost. Hardly excessive. The $25 billion would be taken from the $700 billion already appropriated for the financial "rescue". In other words, it will not cost any additional money. The fact is, they are spending $700 billion to rescue the companies responsible for our financial mess. I think it would be a travesty to not divert 4% of that $700 billion to save God knows how many blue collar jobs. Ralph
No, we DON'T want to "assist" ("bail-out") our hopelessly screwed-up auto manufacturing sector. It is the excessively-high labor costs that we would be subsidizing and all for naught anyway. It is highly unlikely that these dinosaurs can survive even with public assistance which would go mostly to fund uncompetitive labor contracts. It would be throwing good money we don't have after bad.
As for some of the scum that caused this mess…Citigroup now says it will lay off 53,000 after taking our billions. I wonder how many they will be hiring in India?
Ralph
Ray Dunakin said:Sorry, been out of town for a while...I am talking about the NSA wire-taps done with the assistance of the tele-communications companies...there is a ton out there on it, this was one of the more 'balanced' articles...Mark Verbrugge said:What wiretapping are you referring to, specifically?
So Paul, do you think the unlawful mass wire tapping done by Bush and his cronies is harmless play?
Ralph Berg said:
The labor cost are insignificant. As I said, the Unions have been making concessions for years. The experts that follow the industry say that GM has made all the right moves. Once the recession is over they expect GM to be highly profitable. Ford and Chrysler are not too far behind.As for some of the scum that caused this mess…Citigroup now says it will lay off 53,000 after taking our billions. I wonder how many they will be hiring in India?
Ralph
Labor costs for the Big Three is a good 1/3 above the cost of the plants in the South. That IS significant. Not only that, union rules have made the operation of the Big Three extremely burdensome in the same manner the unions destroyed the railroads back in the 1920s. The fact is that this “bail-out” is nothing more than a Democratic Party pay-back to the unions. That is just fine IF you belong to the UAW, but MOST of us do not, NOR are we union. Nor do we want this to happen.
Ron Simpson said:Ralph Berg said:
The labor cost are insignificant. As I said, the Unions have been making concessions for years. The experts that follow the industry say that GM has made all the right moves. Once the recession is over they expect GM to be highly profitable. Ford and Chrysler are not too far behind.As for some of the scum that caused this mess…Citigroup now says it will lay off 53,000 after taking our billions. I wonder how many they will be hiring in India?
Ralph
Labor costs for the Big Three is a good 1/3 above the cost of the plants in the South. That IS significant. Not only that, union rules have made the operation of the Big Three extremely burdensome in the same manner the unions destroyed the railroads back in the 1920s. The fact is that this “bail-out” is nothing more than a Democratic Party pay-back to the unions. That is just fine IF you belong to the UAW, but MOST of us do not, NOR are we union. Nor do we want this to happen.
So was the big bank bailout a gift from the Republicans for services rendered? George Bush seemed pretty mad when it didn’t pass the first time, told us what a great disasster it would be if those Dem’s didn’t support it too. Seems both parties are in a big hurry to give my money to those more deserving than I.
Many GM cars are assembled in Canada. GM, Ford and Chrysler have large plants in Mexico. Are you telling me the Mexicans are making more per hour building the Ford Fusion than Toyota and Honda workers in the South?
All those calling the Automakers dinosaurs haven’t looked at them in years. Parts that used to be made “in house” are now made by outside suppliers. They have been downsizing for a long time.
As I said, GM stated labor consists of 6%-8% of the cost of building a vehicle. You would be surprised what the starting wage on the assembly line is. The last several Union contracts have drastically reduced starting pay. I believe the first contract to do this was in the 80’s. The higher paid workers are retiring or being bought out.
When replacement workers are hired, it is at much reduced rate.
Ralph
Mark Verbrugge said:There are many of us who disagree with the original bail-out scheme. That does not justify throwing away OUR money to GM, Ford and Chrysler.
So was the big bank bailout a gift from the Republicans for services rendered? George Bush seemed pretty mad when it didn't pass the first time, told us what a great disasster it would be if those Dem's didn't support it too. Seems both parties are in a big hurry to give my money to those more deserving than I.
Ralph Berg said:Really? Well here's just ONE item: The amount of money GM spent providing health insurance for some 780,000 individuals outstripped the amount of money spent on what is its primary business — making cars. There is NO way THAT can be sustained, especially in a recession economy. It is time to start over by allowing the Big Three to go through the bankruptcy process so those labor contracts HAVE to be renegotiated.
Many GM cars are assembled in Canada. GM, Ford and Chrysler have large plants in Mexico. Are you telling me the Mexicans are making more per hour building the Ford Fusion than Toyota and Honda workers in the South? All those calling the Automakers dinosaurs haven't looked at them in years. Parts that used to be made "in house" are now made by outside suppliers. They have been downsizing for a long time. As I said, GM stated labor consists of 6%-8% of the cost of building a vehicle. You would be surprised what the starting wage on the assembly line is. The last several Union contracts have drastically reduced starting pay. I believe the first contract to do this was in the 80's. The higher paid workers are retiring or being bought out. When replacement workers are hired, it is at much reduced rate. Ralph
Ron Simpson said:I disagree with the original bailout. The fact is, they are doing it. So why not help the manufacturing sector with 4% of that money? I don't know where the 780,000 figure came from. If it is accurate, I would assume it includes many retirees. So what happens to the pensions and health insurance benefits of those retirees? What affect would that have on the economy? The big loss is not in the 120,000 jobs at the automakers. The big problem is the loss of the other 3 million affiliated jobs as well as the pensions of both the workers and retirees. People buy new cars for the warranty. How many will buy from a company in bankruptcy? RalphMark Verbrugge said:There are many of us who disagree with the original bail-out scheme. That does not justify throwing away OUR money to GM, Ford and Chrysler.
So was the big bank bailout a gift from the Republicans for services rendered? George Bush seemed pretty mad when it didn't pass the first time, told us what a great disasster it would be if those Dem's didn't support it too. Seems both parties are in a big hurry to give my money to those more deserving than I.
Ralph Berg said:The upcoming Democrat Party government will be more than willing to throw all that money away. Unfortunately it will only buy a little time, but it will probably not save GM and possibly not Ford, either. The economics dictate that those companies WILL have to renegotiate those contracts. As for the retirement money, those already on retirement had better plan on paring back their lifestyles. We can't afford the bailouts. We could not afford the LAST one. For ALL of you Democrats who have been beating the drums for fiscal responsibility when you had problems with the budgets of Bush presidency, WHY aren't you calling for it NOW ? The process we are witnessing is far worse than ANYTHING which occurred under the Bush Administration and we DON'T have the money for this. So where are you all who have been calling for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY the last few years?
I disagree with the original bailout. The fact is, they are doing it. So why not help the manufacturing sector with 4% of that money? I don't know where the 780,000 figure came from. If it is accurate, I would assume it includes many retirees. So what happens to the pensions and health insurance benefits of those retirees? What affect would that have on the economy? The big loss is not in the 120,000 jobs at the automakers. The big problem is the loss of the other 3 million affiliated jobs as well as the pensions of both the workers and retirees. People buy new cars for the warranty. How many will buy from a company in bankruptcy? Ralph
It’s the other guy who has to be fiscally responsible, Ron, you know that. 
Ron Simpson said:What does this have to do with fiscal responsibility and the Democrats? THE PROCESS YOU ARE WITNESSING IS OCCURRING UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
The upcoming Democrat Party government will be more than willing to throw all that money away. Unfortunately it will only buy a little time, but it will probably not save GM and possibly not Ford, either. The economics dictate that those companies WILL have to renegotiate those contracts. As for the retirement money, those already on retirement had better plan on paring back their lifestyles. We can't afford the bailouts. We could not afford the LAST one. For ALL of you Democrats who have been beating the drums for fiscal responsibility when you had problems with the budgets of Bush presidency, WHY aren't you calling for it NOW ? The process we are witnessing is far worse than ANYTHING which occurred under the Bush Administration and we DON'T have the money for this. So where are you all who have been calling for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY the last few years?
THE $700 BILLION WAS REQUESTED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. If we do not lend the $25 million ton the automakers, it will be going to another bank.
Obama is not even in office and you are already blaming him for the actions of the Bush administration.
Here in the lower 48 we are not awash in natural gas and oil. We do not receive annual payments for several thousand dollars for every resident.
WE need jobs here in the lower 48.
WE need to produce more hard goods and not let less.
Ralph
Exactly Ralph…This is “politics”, it’s always the other party to blame even when the facts show otherwise!
Fact: Mr. Bush is the leader of his party.
Fact: Mr. Bush fought hard for the first bailout and won.
Fact Mr. Bush obviously is a Democrat so it is the fault of the Democratic party we are giving away all this money.
I don’t doubt the Dem’s will be handing out my cash too but I am tired of the right now trying to re-write history to blame the left. The Republican party wears the shame of this one, to be sure they had a lot of Democratic help but Bush signed the check! Apparently the two parties do work well together, to spend my money on someone else.
“One President at a time”. Though some got an early start, we can’t blame the other guy until January 20th.
USA is changing its name to “Bail-out-istan”.
The bailout of the big 3 US automakers is actually a bailout of the UAW.
Mark Verbrugge said:
Exactly Ralph...This is "politics", it's always the other party to blame even when the facts show otherwise!Fact: Mr. Bush is the leader of his party.
Fact: Mr. Bush fought hard for the first bailout and won.Fact Mr. Bush obviously is a Democrat so it is the fault of the Democratic party we are giving away all this money.
I don’t doubt the Dem’s will be handing out my cash too but I am tired of the right now trying to re-write history to blame the left. The Republican party wears the shame of this one, to be sure they had a lot of Democratic help but Bush signed the check! Apparently the two parties do work well together, to spend my money on someone else.
“One President at a time”. Though some got an early start, we can’t blame the other guy until January 20th.
Mark, Ralph,
Bush is just doing his utmost to make sure there’s less money left. 
Ralph Berg said:Pardon me, but just WHO has the "power of the purse?" Is it the President? No. It's Congress. Who controls the Congress (BOTH houses)? Is it the Republicans? NO. It's the Democrats. Nice try. Your Dems did NOT have to accept the Bush proposal, but all I see is them trying to EXPAND upon it.
THE $700 BILLION WAS REQUESTED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. If we do not lend the $25 million ton the automakers, it will be going to another bank.