Unions mandating pay raises regardless of you performance is one major way they have hurt many industries. This alone hurts productivity more than anything. The employees know all they have to do is enough work not to get fired, which most people could do in their sleep under a union run plant, and they are going to not only get paid, but get regular pay increases. Unions tie the hands of companies to the point where they can't even manage their own employees unless they do something considered politically incorrect.
"The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars."
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
Unions are at fault? yeah that's what rush and bill have been saying... no truth to it but believe what you want puro. Because companies have cared so much for employees.... (not saying unions are a godsend, as there has been a lot of corruption in some of them. A local one that is at PGE is one of them.)
Philips Lighting Company plant in Paris Texas. Union run plant. Got rid of all but 6 people out of over 50 because they couldn't afford to pay them. The Union had a chance to cut the company some slack, but when they demand the guy that sweeps the floor and takes out the trash be paid $15 and hour for a minimum of 4 hours a day no matter how long it actually takes him, then yes. The Union is 100% to blame. My ex-fiance was the HR Manager for this plant. This is one of MANY MANY MANY MANY cases of Unions destroying a company through greed and an entitlement mentality. That mentality is also what is destroying our country. "The government owes me food, healthcare, welfare, a new car..." Unions do the same thing to companies. I didn't get that from Rush fucking Liimbaugh or anyone else. I know for a fact it's true.
the first $2000 dollars of every car made by UAW companies goes to paying for union demands. tell me that had nothing to do with GM And Chrysler going bankrupt.
the union demands health care. the union demands higher wages. the union demands raises every year. the union demands excessive retirement plans. the union demands that people get paid no matter how productive/unproductive they are. all of those things cost money. money that has to be made up by raising the prices of the goods they produce. this causes people to buy less of that product. so you combine the worst things you can ever have in a business: mandated higher costs and slower sales.
how are unions not biting the hand that feeds?
yeah and the ceo salaries go up ever year too! millions of dollars perhaps billions but it's not right to have workers continue to get paid well and have benefits? So paying people less more and more cutting their pay and benefits but raising pay to ceo's and advertising and other miscellaneous affairs is okay? of course it is... if you haven't noticed because of corporatism since the 80's the income levels of Americans have got lower and lower thus you have people working multiple jobs. The cost of living has gone up but wages, they don't matter let's make them less and keep people from earning. The problem is greed of corporations. A great example of this is, Nike when they moved major productions overseas paying pennies to workers and firing American workers which saved the company billions but did the price go down, no, it went up. The example follows many companies and that needs to fixed. But with people and govt officials believing the lie that companies are not at fault but unions are nothing will change only worsen. Let it be noted that I don't think that unions are always an answer but they do work when allowed. The auto unions have made concessions many many times and every time workers get the shaft but it is pushed from the company. I guess the workers in this country should continue to pay for a few which make billions off their labor. Rush and the lot would be proud. Along the lines of insanity more rhetoric from the main source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s
GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because they kept making cars behind the times, not being competitive with other foriegn companies, making bad investments and high salaries. Seems to have been doing fine back in the 60's, 70's, 80's.... And unions where full swing and people were actually getting paid. It must be noted that healthcare also played a role I'm sure as most companies are having a hard time with healthcare insurance as the rates keep going up more and more. One reason why these companies need to be stopped. Reform for healthcare must happen or it will continue to get worse.
GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because they kept making cars behind the times, not being competitive with other foriegn companies, making bad investments and high salaries. Seems to have been doing fine back in the 60's, 70's, 80's.... And unions where full swing and people were actually getting paid.
I never said Unions were there ONLY reason GM and Chysler failed, but you are correct that GM and Chrylser failed because they are behind the times. The actual reason the US auto industry was doing well before is because until the 80's there weren't hardly any foreign competitors. The auto market of the 70's, which if you do a little history checking wasn't that freakin great, wasn't anything like today. You didn't have 10 different companies from overseas that sold cars here in the US. That is part of a capitolist market. GM and Chrysler failed... They didn't produce a product the people wanted. They can either change the way they do things, or go away forever. Unions just dragged them down faster.
Ok, just on a side note because I just read this, could this guy be any more of a freakin NUT CASE?? Who out there could honestly take this him serious??
GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because they kept making cars behind the times, not being competitive with other foriegn companies, making bad investments and high salaries. Seems to have been doing fine back in the 60's, 70's, 80's.... And unions where full swing and people were actually getting paid.
I never said Unions were there ONLY reason GM and Chysler failed, but you are correct that GM and Chrylser failed because they are behind the times. The actual reason the US auto industry was doing well before is because until the 80's there weren't hardly any foreign competitors. The auto market of the 70's, which if you do a little history checking wasn't that freakin great, wasn't anything like today. You didn't have 10 different companies from overseas that sold cars here in the US. That is part of a capitolist market. GM and Chrysler failed... They didn't produce a product the people wanted. They can either change the way they do things, or go away forever. Unions just dragged them down faster.
I'll agree foreign competition makes things harder but at the same time they pay their employee's much less and in a lot of places the cost of living isn't as much. So let me ask this, why should American workers get pay cuts and guidelines be set to make wages closer to foreign workers? Especially when the cost of living goes up and up here? So making American families worse off is good? I do think that a lot of problems do stem from providing health care for employees as the insurance companies have kept raising their rates over and over for years. I don't blame the unions for having to work with that, and the 70 or so dollars that has been spread over the media has benefits calculated in it. Just like my dad makes around 90 dollars an hour on the books at his job, it's including all his benefits. I'm sure that fixing this health care problem would greatly relieve strain companies have to deal with. GM needs to really think ahead of the times and bring out cars ahead of their competitors. The Volt is one example. That thing should have been out years ago. Even the new Nissan hybrid/electric will be a little better than the volt and probably will come out before. I know that Ford is getting things together, they re-opened an old truck plant and are make electric and hybrid cars there. Brings new jobs, and brings more power in the market. I'm eying the 11 focus hybrid.
Ok, just on a side note because I just read this, could this guy be any more of a freakin NUT CASE?? Who out there could honestly take this him serious??
GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because they kept making cars behind the times, not being competitive with other foriegn companies, making bad investments and high salaries. Seems to have been doing fine back in the 60's, 70's, 80's.... And unions where full swing and people were actually getting paid.
I never said Unions were there ONLY reason GM and Chysler failed, but you are correct that GM and Chrylser failed because they are behind the times. The actual reason the US auto industry was doing well before is because until the 80's there weren't hardly any foreign competitors. The auto market of the 70's, which if you do a little history checking wasn't that freakin great, wasn't anything like today. You didn't have 10 different companies from overseas that sold cars here in the US. That is part of a capitolist market. GM and Chrysler failed... They didn't produce a product the people wanted. They can either change the way they do things, or go away forever. Unions just dragged them down faster.
I'll agree foreign competition makes things harder but at the same time they pay their employee's much less and in a lot of places the cost of living isn't as much. So let me ask this, why should American workers get pay cuts and guidelines be set to make wages closer to foreign workers? Especially when the cost of living goes up and up here? So making American families worse off is good? I do think that a lot of problems do stem from providing health care for employees as the insurance companies have kept raising their rates over and over for years. I don't blame the unions for having to work with that, and the 70 or so dollars that has been spread over the media has benefits calculated in it. Just like my dad makes around 90 dollars an hour on the books at his job, it's including all his benefits. I'm sure that fixing this health care problem would greatly relieve strain companies have to deal with. GM needs to really think ahead of the times and bring out cars ahead of their competitors. The Volt is one example. That thing should have been out years ago. Even the new Nissan hybrid/electric will be a little better than the volt and probably will come out before. I know that Ford is getting things together, they re-opened an old truck plant and are make electric and hybrid cars there. Brings new jobs, and brings more power in the market. I'm eying the 11 focus hybrid.
Yea, but if you look at the sales figures, Hybrids are stacking up on lots all over the country because no one will buy them. Making Hybrids, and the government forcing companies to make them, is not the answer. I have NEVER in my life worked for a Union, but I have pretty much always been paid a fair and competitive wage for the area I live in and I've worked for some large corporations before I went into Law Enforcement. How is this possible without a Union?? I'll say it again, Unions have outlived their usefulness.
I'll say it again, Unions have outlived their usefulness.
The Union has saved my fathers job from pissed off students trying to file false complaints against him after he gave them a bad grade for not doing any work in school. The Union I'm joined to last year negotiated long over do benefit upgrades to my job. The Union my mother as RN is joined to is always doing good things for the nurses. So I disagree that "Unions have outlived their usefulness".
I agree that there are useless and harmful Unions out there, like the California prison employee's Union but don't discount all Unions just because some are bad.
yeah and the ceo salaries go up ever year too! millions of dollars perhaps billions but it's not right to have workers continue to get paid well and have benefits?
these are to separate issues. CEOs get paid that well because there are very few people in the world that can do what they do. and the "millions" of dollars they get paid are just a drop in the bucket compared to the payroll of the company. if you cut the CEO's pay to ZERO and distributed it among the rest of the people working for GM the pay may go up a few dollars a year. average CEO salary in us according to salary.com: $1,255,019
now if you cut taxes by a few percentage points there would be BILLIONS freed up to hire more employees for an increased productivity and more wages being doled out. but if you raise taxed on corporations they will cut jobs from the working class. the CEO will still have a job but the thousands of people who NEED jobs will lose them. thats not compassionate OR fair. so how is raising taxes on "evil corporations" "fair" to the people? its not. it will hurt the people in the long run.
phobicsquirrel:
So paying people less more and more cutting their pay and benefits but raising pay to ceo's and advertising and other miscellaneous affairs is okay?
i never said anything about cutting pay. i said that things cost money. if you disrupt the natural market relationship between employer and employee by forcing the company to provide benefits, you are forcing the hand of that company to cut costs elsewhere. the easiest way for a corporation to cut costs is to raise the price of the goods they produce. they next step is usually layoffs. it is not the companies responsibility to provide anything but a paycheck to their employees. instead of living in larger houses or buying expensive cars they can go out and get health care. thats what i did. thats what many do. it is my responsibility to take care of myself. it is noone elses. they are not my mother, or nanny.
phobicsquirrel:
if you haven't noticed because of corporatism since the 80's the income levels of Americans have got lower and lower thus you have people working multiple jobs.
um this is a flat out falsehood
phobicsquirrel:
The cost of living has gone up but wages, they don't matter let's make them less and keep people from earning.
interesting. taxes are what really keep people from earning money and make it harder to gain wealth, but somehow you are ok with taxes.
phobicsquirrel:
The problem is greed of corporations.
wanna talk greed? ill talk greed
the government does not produce any products that provide real wealth for anyone. they take money from the people via taxes. they do it by mandate. they use that money to set up programs the way they want them and force you to oblige to them. its their way or the high way. no corporation has ever forced me to do anything. no corporation has ever forced me to buy their product. no corporation has ever forced me to work for it. who is greedy here?
phobicsquirrel:
A great example of this is, Nike when they moved major productions overseas paying pennies to workers and firing American workers which saved the company billions but did the price go down, no, it went up.
now we have tariffs on products over seas so that the "buy american" people are happy. this keeps the price of goods produced elsewhere up. why is it that to a liberal the only solution to any problem that may come along is more taxes? maybe if Nike didnt have to deal with higher and higher corporate taxes, government mandates to provide benefits, and an ever increasing minimum wage, they wouldnt have to go to another country to keep their profits in the black
Governments should govern, not micro-manage the economy. A government unrealistic enough to think it can micro-manage is likely to do a worse job than most.
A few hundred politicians, or a few thousand bureaucrats, cannot possibly have sufficient knowledge to manage complex economics, solve complex problems, or match the brain-power of billions of people operating in a free market.
phobicsquirrel:
Let it be noted that I don't think that unions are always an answer but they do work when allowed. The auto unions have made concessions many many times and every time workers get the shaft but it is pushed from the company. I guess the workers in this country should continue to pay for a few which make billions off their labor
unions do not work anymore. they have become the big business that they were created to stop. the unions are greedy as well. the union leaders are all rich. many as rich as the CEO's. dont give me this "only corporations are greedy" BS, because i dont buy it for a second.
he has already failed. he hasnt failed what he set out to do. he has failed the people of the US. Five months into the administration and unemployment has risen even faster. (about 2 million jobs lost since he took the oath of office even though he passed the stimulus bill) both the auto bail outs and the TARP bail (I in know thats bushes bail out) outs did not help. he has created the largest budget deficit in history. he is printing money like a mad man. he is taxing everyone and everything he can. China owns us and is telling us that we are spending recklessly. all of this will not bring the economy back. it will only hurt it.
If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power.
I'll say it again, Unions have outlived their usefulness.
The Union has saved my fathers job from pissed off students trying to file false complaints against him after he gave them a bad grade for not doing any work in school. The Union I'm joined to last year negotiated long over do benefit upgrades to my job. The Union my mother as RN is joined to is always doing good things for the nurses. So I disagree that "Unions have outlived their usefulness".
I agree that there are useless and harmful Unions out there, like the California prison employee's Union but don't discount all Unions just because some are bad.
a good union, like a good government will only step in when the rights of an individual are being violated. of course, if we had a good government where this was the case, we wouldnt have to have unions....
I'll say it again, Unions have outlived their usefulness.
The Union has saved my fathers job from pissed off students trying to file false complaints against him after he gave them a bad grade for not doing any work in school. The Union I'm joined to last year negotiated long over do benefit upgrades to my job. The Union my mother as RN is joined to is always doing good things for the nurses. So I disagree that "Unions have outlived their usefulness".
I agree that there are useless and harmful Unions out there, like the California prison employee's Union but don't discount all Unions just because some are bad.
My thoughts are that those same things the Union accomplished could be done without a union. This would save the company and the employees money and eliminate the coruption issue with the unions.
This next part is not aimed at you Sane.
What seems funny to me is how the left seems to feel Corporations are corupt and need to be stopped, but the way to correct this is with an even more corupt Government and the most corupt of all, the Unions. Doesn't make any sense at all to me...
yeah and the ceo salaries go up ever year too! millions of dollars perhaps billions but it's not right to have workers continue to get paid well and have benefits?
these are to separate issues. CEOs get paid that well because there are very few people in the world that can do what they do. and the "millions" of dollars they get paid are just a drop in the bucket compared to the payroll of the company. if you cut the CEO's pay to ZERO and distributed it among the rest of the people working for GM the pay may go up a few dollars a year. average CEO salary in us according to salary.com: $1,255,019
now if you cut taxes by a few percentage points there would be BILLIONS freed up to hire more employees for an increased productivity and more wages being doled out. but if you raise taxed on corporations they will cut jobs from the working class. the CEO will still have a job but the thousands of people who NEED jobs will lose them. thats not compassionate OR fair. so how is raising taxes on "evil corporations" "fair" to the people? its not. it will hurt the people in the long run.
phobicsquirrel:
So paying people less more and more cutting their pay and benefits but raising pay to ceo's and advertising and other miscellaneous affairs is okay?
i never said anything about cutting pay. i said that things cost money. if you disrupt the natural market relationship between employer and employee by forcing the company to provide benefits, you are forcing the hand of that company to cut costs elsewhere. the easiest way for a corporation to cut costs is to raise the price of the goods they produce. they next step is usually layoffs. it is not the companies responsibility to provide anything but a paycheck to their employees. instead of living in larger houses or buying expensive cars they can go out and get health care. thats what i did. thats what many do. it is my responsibility to take care of myself. it is noone elses. they are not my mother, or nanny.
phobicsquirrel:
if you haven't noticed because of corporatism since the 80's the income levels of Americans have got lower and lower thus you have people working multiple jobs.
um this is a flat out falsehood
phobicsquirrel:
The cost of living has gone up but wages, they don't matter let's make them less and keep people from earning.
interesting. taxes are what really keep people from earning money and make it harder to gain wealth, but somehow you are ok with taxes.
phobicsquirrel:
The problem is greed of corporations.
wanna talk greed? ill talk greed
the government does not produce any products that provide real wealth for anyone. they take money from the people via taxes. they do it by mandate. they use that money to set up programs the way they want them and force you to oblige to them. its their way or the high way. no corporation has ever forced me to do anything. no corporation has ever forced me to buy their product. no corporation has ever forced me to work for it. who is greedy here?
phobicsquirrel:
A great example of this is, Nike when they moved major productions overseas paying pennies to workers and firing American workers which saved the company billions but did the price go down, no, it went up.
now we have tariffs on products over seas so that the "buy american" people are happy. this keeps the price of goods produced elsewhere up. why is it that to a liberal the only solution to any problem that may come along is more taxes? maybe if Nike didnt have to deal with higher and higher corporate taxes, government mandates to provide benefits, and an ever increasing minimum wage, they wouldnt have to go to another country to keep their profits in the black
Governments should govern, not micro-manage the economy. A government unrealistic enough to think it can micro-manage is likely to do a worse job than most.
A few hundred politicians, or a few thousand bureaucrats, cannot possibly have sufficient knowledge to manage complex economics, solve complex problems, or match the brain-power of billions of people operating in a free market.
phobicsquirrel:
Let it be noted that I don't think that unions are always an answer but they do work when allowed. The auto unions have made concessions many many times and every time workers get the shaft but it is pushed from the company. I guess the workers in this country should continue to pay for a few which make billions off their labor
unions do not work anymore. they have become the big business that they were created to stop. the unions are greedy as well. the union leaders are all rich. many as rich as the CEO's. dont give me this "only corporations are greedy" BS, because i dont buy it for a second.
he has already failed. he hasnt failed what he set out to do. he has failed the people of the US. Five months into the administration and unemployment has risen even faster. (about 2 million jobs lost since he took the oath of office even though he passed the stimulus bill) both the auto bail outs and the TARP bail (I in know thats bushes bail out) outs did not help. he has created the largest budget deficit in history. he is printing money like a mad man. he is taxing everyone and everything he can. China owns us and is telling us that we are spending recklessly. all of this will not bring the economy back. it will only hurt it.
If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power.
Obama has failed the people huh? sure, like Iraq had nukes. I can see why urby stopped debating, some of you are way off base and there are not a hand full of people that can run companies, the people who run these huge companies can't even do it.
yeah and the ceo salaries go up ever year too! millions of dollars perhaps billions but it's not right to have workers continue to get paid well and have benefits?
these are to separate issues. CEOs get paid that well because there are very few people in the world that can do what they do. and the "millions" of dollars they get paid are just a drop in the bucket compared to the payroll of the company. if you cut the CEO's pay to ZERO and distributed it among the rest of the people working for GM the pay may go up a few dollars a year. average CEO salary in us according to salary.com: $1,255,019
now if you cut taxes by a few percentage points there would be BILLIONS freed up to hire more employees for an increased productivity and more wages being doled out. but if you raise taxed on corporations they will cut jobs from the working class. the CEO will still have a job but the thousands of people who NEED jobs will lose them. thats not compassionate OR fair. so how is raising taxes on "evil corporations" "fair" to the people? its not. it will hurt the people in the long run.
phobicsquirrel:
So paying people less more and more cutting their pay and benefits but raising pay to ceo's and advertising and other miscellaneous affairs is okay?
i never said anything about cutting pay. i said that things cost money. if you disrupt the natural market relationship between employer and employee by forcing the company to provide benefits, you are forcing the hand of that company to cut costs elsewhere. the easiest way for a corporation to cut costs is to raise the price of the goods they produce. they next step is usually layoffs. it is not the companies responsibility to provide anything but a paycheck to their employees. instead of living in larger houses or buying expensive cars they can go out and get health care. thats what i did. thats what many do. it is my responsibility to take care of myself. it is noone elses. they are not my mother, or nanny.
phobicsquirrel:
if you haven't noticed because of corporatism since the 80's the income levels of Americans have got lower and lower thus you have people working multiple jobs.
um this is a flat out falsehood
phobicsquirrel:
The cost of living has gone up but wages, they don't matter let's make them less and keep people from earning.
interesting. taxes are what really keep people from earning money and make it harder to gain wealth, but somehow you are ok with taxes.
phobicsquirrel:
The problem is greed of corporations.
wanna talk greed? ill talk greed
the government does not produce any products that provide real wealth for anyone. they take money from the people via taxes. they do it by mandate. they use that money to set up programs the way they want them and force you to oblige to them. its their way or the high way. no corporation has ever forced me to do anything. no corporation has ever forced me to buy their product. no corporation has ever forced me to work for it. who is greedy here?
phobicsquirrel:
A great example of this is, Nike when they moved major productions overseas paying pennies to workers and firing American workers which saved the company billions but did the price go down, no, it went up.
now we have tariffs on products over seas so that the "buy american" people are happy. this keeps the price of goods produced elsewhere up. why is it that to a liberal the only solution to any problem that may come along is more taxes? maybe if Nike didnt have to deal with higher and higher corporate taxes, government mandates to provide benefits, and an ever increasing minimum wage, they wouldnt have to go to another country to keep their profits in the black
Governments should govern, not micro-manage the economy. A government unrealistic enough to think it can micro-manage is likely to do a worse job than most.
A few hundred politicians, or a few thousand bureaucrats, cannot possibly have sufficient knowledge to manage complex economics, solve complex problems, or match the brain-power of billions of people operating in a free market.
phobicsquirrel:
Let it be noted that I don't think that unions are always an answer but they do work when allowed. The auto unions have made concessions many many times and every time workers get the shaft but it is pushed from the company. I guess the workers in this country should continue to pay for a few which make billions off their labor
unions do not work anymore. they have become the big business that they were created to stop. the unions are greedy as well. the union leaders are all rich. many as rich as the CEO's. dont give me this "only corporations are greedy" BS, because i dont buy it for a second.
he has already failed. he hasnt failed what he set out to do. he has failed the people of the US. Five months into the administration and unemployment has risen even faster. (about 2 million jobs lost since he took the oath of office even though he passed the stimulus bill) both the auto bail outs and the TARP bail (I in know thats bushes bail out) outs did not help. he has created the largest budget deficit in history. he is printing money like a mad man. he is taxing everyone and everything he can. China owns us and is telling us that we are spending recklessly. all of this will not bring the economy back. it will only hurt it.
If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power.
Obama has failed the people huh? sure, like Iraq had nukes. I can see why urby stopped debating, some of you are way off base and there are not a hand full of people that can run companies, the people who run these huge companies can't even do it.
Why would you say you understand why Urby stopped debating? Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking? I thought the left was supposed to be so tolerant of other peoples beliefs and open minded about sharing ideas... I guess that only applies if you agree with them.
Why would you say you understand why Urby stopped debating? Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking? I thought the left was supposed to be so tolerant of other peoples beliefs and open minded about sharing ideas... I guess that only applies if you agree with them.
What? "However we can prove that the economic numbers have gotten drastically worse since Obama took office" That's like blaming you for all the things that the last employee did wrong at a new job.
The economy was getting worse before Obama took office? I've known this was coming for about 4 years now, and are current economic state would probably be worse off if Obama hadn't taken office.
As for WMD's in Iraq, yes maybe they had WMD but everything, are intelligence, other country's intelligence, and all the inspectors that went in to Iraq have found NO sign of them. So we invaded a County, illegally based on are laws and international laws, we've spent $677,053,933,801 so far on the war, we have lost about 31,327 man and woman and what do we have to show for it? Are country is beyond broke, terrorist attacks on the world have not gone down if anything they have gone up.
"Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking"
There is a point at witch saying the same things back and forth becomes destructive. When that point is reached you have to stand back and just say you have your views and I have my views.
PS. You shouldn't use FOX as a source, even FOX makes fun of how biased they are.
NOTE: I meant to say about 31,327 wounded and about 7,500 deaths. My bad, sorry.
Obama has failed the people huh? sure, like Iraq had nukes. I can see why urby stopped debating, some of you are way off base and there are not a hand full of people that can run companies, the people who run these huge companies can't even do it.
way to change the subject. convince me he HASNT failed.
this is how debate works. who knows, maybe ill learn something or change my point of view.
Why would you say you understand why Urby stopped debating? Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking? I thought the left was supposed to be so tolerant of other peoples beliefs and open minded about sharing ideas... I guess that only applies if you agree with them.
What? "However we can prove that the economic numbers have gotten drastically worse since Obama took office" That's like blaming you for all the things that the last employee did wrong at a new job.
I would agree with you if he was in his first 100 days AND had not passed the stimulus bill OR the budget he passed. unfortunately, none of these are the case. ...and if we are gunna use metaphors, you cant blame last year's coach 4 games into this season.
that being said, there were things bush did wrong. Many things in fact. but not everything that goes wrong is Bush's fault. Bush didnt rack up more debt in the last 6 months than any president has ever over his entire term. (even after adjusted for inflation) i thought this stimulus bill was supposed to fix everything? or at least start to... it has not. there is a damn good argument that it has made it worse. ... especially if you look at it from the standpoint of individual rights.
sane:
...and are current economic state would probably be worse off if Obama hadn't taken office.
cant prove that; heck, you cant even provide a single shred of data to support that claim. this argument is invalid.
sane:
As for WMD's in Iraq, yes maybe they had WMD but everything, are intelligence, other country's intelligence, and all the inspectors that went in to Iraq have found NO sign of them.
yes, after the fact. but before the fact there was only ONE country that said there wasnt. ...and that was syria. I dont trust them as far as i can throw them (yes the entire country)
im still not saying the war was the right way to go, but if you are gunna enter a fight, get the facts right.
and what do we have to show for it? Are country is beyond broke,
but way less broke than Obama's budget deficit of $1.8 TRILLION
sane:
terrorist attacks on the world have not gone down if anything they have gone up.
please back this up with data.
sane:
PS. You shouldn't use FOX as a source, even FOX makes fun of how biased they are.
again, back that up with the link where they do so.
also... they are conservative. but that does not mean that everything they say is a lie. conservatives are not monsters. liberals lie too. FOX news is just as Valid as any left-leaning Obama-loving network.
its not so much that they stopped debating in this thread. they seemed to have left the forum all together. as if we are to evil to be associated with. ....and im not even a conservative...
Why would you say you understand why Urby stopped debating? Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking? I thought the left was supposed to be so tolerant of other peoples beliefs and open minded about sharing ideas... I guess that only applies if you agree with them.
What? "However we can prove that the economic numbers have gotten drastically worse since Obama took office" That's like blaming you for all the things that the last employee did wrong at a new job.
The economy was getting worse before Obama took office? I've known this was coming for about 4 years now, and are current economic state would probably be worse off if Obama hadn't taken office.
As for WMD's in Iraq, yes maybe they had WMD but everything, are intelligence, other country's intelligence, and all the inspectors that went in to Iraq have found NO sign of them. So we invaded a County, illegally based on are laws and international laws, we've spent $677,053,933,801 so far on the war, we have lost about 31,327 man and woman and what do we have to show for it? Are country is beyond broke, terrorist attacks on the world have not gone down if anything they have gone up.
"Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking"
There is a point at witch saying the same things back and forth becomes destructive. When that point is reached you have to stand back and just say you have your views and I have my views.
PS. You shouldn't use FOX as a source, even FOX makes fun of how biased they are.
Yea, before you attack me you need to do a little research and see I'm not a huge Bush fan. I don't believe everything he did was right. He was VERY wrong on immigration and social spending. I don't believe he is a war criminal, I don't believe he intentionally lied, and I don't believe everything wrong in the world is his fault. Hurricane Katrina would have happened even if green as Kermit Al Gore had taken office. As kuzi stated, there was only ONE country in the whole freakin world that was saying they had intelligence claiming Iraq had no WMDs and it was Syria. The intel that we went to war based on and that Powell presented was from the Clinton administration. AKA George Tenat.
Saying the economy would have been worse if Obama hadn't taken office isn't true at all because there is absolutly no way to know that. It is 100% speculation based on bias. That is like his claim that he has saved 150,000 jobs. He doesn't know for sure that those jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. There is NO government equation to figure the number of jobs possibly saved. It is speculation entirely.
Your numbers on the deaths in Iraq are very inflated, and I seriously doubt your figures about terrorist attacks are valid. I would really like to see some kind of facts on that. Also you can't say be invaded illegally because we didn't by our law, or international law. If what we did was illegal, then so was what Clinton did when he bombed a Tylenol factory. Truth be known, the same people that cry about invading Iraq are the same people who cried for military action in Darfur and Rawanda. Human rights are only important if a liberal says they are I guess... Because Sadam was one of the worst if not THE worst human right violaters in the world today. Also you can bash Fox News all you want, but when has there EVER been a claim that they lied or reported false news? Because I remember the left coast LA Times and a few others doing this, but not Fox News even as evil as you think they are. Most people on the left don't like Fox because they started to try and even the score a bit on media bias which is still unbelievably left leaning when it comes to TV news.
Lastly I would like to say that any debate at all is good because it opens up your mind to thoughts that you might not have considered otherwise. You just have to have an open mind to begin with. Just like your numbers on deaths in Iraq an terrorist attacks, I don't think this are acurate so I have been doing some research and will continue to after I post this. The only number I've been able to come up with was a little over 4,000. I'll check into this some more.
Ok, first of all the new state of the auto industry has been talked about on here with different ideas on how to fix it or why it is in the gutter in the first place, but can any honestly say that the new CEO Obama is putting in power over GM is the right choice?? Edward Whitacre Jr. was the head of AT&T and did a GREAT job. He is a very smart man when it comes to making financial and business choices, but wouldn't it be nice for the CEO of a major car manufacturer to maybe KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT CARS??? Here is a quote from Mr. Whitacre himself.
"I don't know anything about cars. I do know about business and I know about big business. And, you know, employees and all that sort of thing."
Seriously??? No doubt he is a very smart man, but why in the hell would you put him in charge or an auto company??? Next think you know they will be putting Star Bucks master blender in charge of full injection design for future models...
i dont think this is all that big of a flaw. a good leader will surround himself with people that know cars.
im not sure how much influence the Obama Administration has over GM (or will in the future) so i dont know if they will let him surround himself with the correct people.
as far as the if its the right person for the job... we will have to see. I didnt think Obama had failed on his first day in office. Im not going to think this guy will fail in his first few days either.
i dont think this is all that big of a flaw. a good leader will surround himself with people that know cars.
im not sure how much influence the Obama Administration has over GM (or will in the future) so i dont know if they will let him surround himself with the correct people.
as far as the if its the right person for the job... we will have to see. I didnt think Obama had failed on his first day in office. Im not going to think this guy will fail in his first few days either.
I'm not saying he will fail, I'm just saying I don't think he would be the best choice for this job. It seems like more of a political appointment than it is in the best interest of the company. I hope he does well, because I am a GM fan. I just don't think it was the best choice.
this is one of those times where i like to take a thought right out of the playbook of H.R. Clinton.
she said (of the Bush administration): “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”
i have never agreed with her more.
most people hate to pay taxes. voicing that opinion in a disgruntled way is not a crime. they have a right to disagree and be angry with any policy they want.
the government going after them for it is terrible.
...when people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Fascism: noun. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
could someone explain to me how when the Obama administration says "Executive pay needs curbs, better management, across private sector" this is not inching in the direction of Fascism? what if they dont wanna change the pay scale? is the government gunna fire the CEO and the board of directors and replace it with their own? are they gunna pass a law that will tell the private sector how much they can get paid?
how did we get to a point where i even have to think about questions like this?
Fascism: noun. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
could someone explain to me how when the Obama administration says "Executive pay needs curbs, better management, across private sector" this is not inching in the direction of Fascism? what if they dont wanna change the pay scale? is the government gunna fire the CEO and the board of directors and replace it with their own? are they gunna pass a law that will tell the private sector how much they can get paid?
how did we get to a point where i even have to think about questions like this?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. In all honesty, the fact that Mr. Whitacre is the person picker for the GM CEO doesn't really bother me. What bothers me the most about the whole thing is that the government picked ANYONE to be the CEO of GM. The fact that they are forcing their agenda on the auto industry at all. They are going to mandate what cars will be made, what fuel efficiency they must achieve, and will punish anyone from trying to buy a vehicle that doesn't fit the mold they have set in their minds.
The key phrase in what Obama's administration said is PRIVATE sector. If the government has their grubby paws in there, it's not really private anymore, and that works out to be fascism. Correct me if I'm wrong there. And I agree with you kuzi, this shouldn't even be an issue, we shouldn't have to think about stuff like this.
Fascism: noun. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
could someone explain to me how when the Obama administration says "Executive pay needs curbs, better management, across private sector" this is not inching in the direction of Fascism? what if they dont wanna change the pay scale? is the government gunna fire the CEO and the board of directors and replace it with their own? are they gunna pass a law that will tell the private sector how much they can get paid?
how did we get to a point where i even have to think about questions like this?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. In all honesty, the fact that Mr. Whitacre is the person picker for the GM CEO doesn't really bother me. What bothers me the most about the whole thing is that the government picked ANYONE to be the CEO of GM. The fact that they are forcing their agenda on the auto industry at all. They are going to mandate what cars will be made, what fuel efficiency they must achieve, and will punish anyone from trying to buy a vehicle that doesn't fit the mold they have set in their minds.
and if GM fails with the new CEO they will blame him and the government comes ot smelling like a rose.
Fascism: noun. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
could someone explain to me how when the Obama administration says "Executive pay needs curbs, better management, across private sector" this is not inching in the direction of Fascism? what if they dont wanna change the pay scale? is the government gunna fire the CEO and the board of directors and replace it with their own? are they gunna pass a law that will tell the private sector how much they can get paid?
how did we get to a point where i even have to think about questions like this?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. In all honesty, the fact that Mr. Whitacre is the person picker for the GM CEO doesn't really bother me. What bothers me the most about the whole thing is that the government picked ANYONE to be the CEO of GM. The fact that they are forcing their agenda on the auto industry at all. They are going to mandate what cars will be made, what fuel efficiency they must achieve, and will punish anyone from trying to buy a vehicle that doesn't fit the mold they have set in their minds.
Sounds a little like what they did with sub-prime mortgages and the companies that didn't lend out enough of said mortgages...
Comments
Rush and the lot would be proud. Along the lines of insanity more rhetoric from the main source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/
I agree that there are useless and harmful Unions out there, like the California prison employee's Union but don't discount all Unions just because some are bad.
now if you cut taxes by a few percentage points there would be BILLIONS freed up to hire more employees for an increased productivity and more wages being doled out.
but if you raise taxed on corporations they will cut jobs from the working class. the CEO will still have a job but the thousands of people who NEED jobs will lose them. thats not compassionate OR fair. so how is raising taxes on "evil corporations" "fair" to the people? its not. it will hurt the people in the long run. i never said anything about cutting pay. i said that things cost money. if you disrupt the natural market relationship between employer and employee by forcing the company to provide benefits, you are forcing the hand of that company to cut costs elsewhere. the easiest way for a corporation to cut costs is to raise the price of the goods they produce. they next step is usually layoffs.
it is not the companies responsibility to provide anything but a paycheck to their employees. instead of living in larger houses or buying expensive cars they can go out and get health care. thats what i did. thats what many do. it is my responsibility to take care of myself. it is noone elses. they are not my mother, or nanny. um this is a flat out falsehood interesting. taxes are what really keep people from earning money and make it harder to gain wealth, but somehow you are ok with taxes. wanna talk greed? ill talk greed
the government does not produce any products that provide real wealth for anyone. they take money from the people via taxes. they do it by mandate. they use that money to set up programs the way they want them and force you to oblige to them. its their way or the high way.
no corporation has ever forced me to do anything. no corporation has ever forced me to buy their product. no corporation has ever forced me to work for it. who is greedy here?
now we have tariffs on products over seas so that the "buy american" people are happy. this keeps the price of goods produced elsewhere up.
why is it that to a liberal the only solution to any problem that may come along is more taxes? maybe if Nike didnt have to deal with higher and higher corporate taxes, government mandates to provide benefits, and an ever increasing minimum wage, they wouldnt have to go to another country to keep their profits in the black
Governments should govern, not micro-manage the economy. A government unrealistic enough to think it can micro-manage is likely to do a worse job than most.
A few hundred politicians, or a few thousand bureaucrats, cannot possibly have sufficient knowledge to manage complex economics, solve complex problems, or match the brain-power of billions of people operating in a free market. unions do not work anymore. they have become the big business that they were created to stop. the unions are greedy as well. the union leaders are all rich. many as rich as the CEO's. dont give me this "only corporations are greedy" BS, because i dont buy it for a second. he has already failed. he hasnt failed what he set out to do.
he has failed the people of the US.
Five months into the administration and unemployment has risen even faster. (about 2 million jobs lost since he took the oath of office even though he passed the stimulus bill) both the auto bail outs and the TARP bail (I in know thats bushes bail out) outs did not help. he has created the largest budget deficit in history. he is printing money like a mad man. he is taxing everyone and everything he can. China owns us and is telling us that we are spending recklessly. all of this will not bring the economy back. it will only hurt it.
If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power.
but i need to go get some profit of my own. see ya after work, or tomorrow depending on how lazy i am tonight.
This next part is not aimed at you Sane.
What seems funny to me is how the left seems to feel Corporations are corupt and need to be stopped, but the way to correct this is with an even more corupt Government and the most corupt of all, the Unions. Doesn't make any sense at all to me...
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/fed-economy-deteriorated-april/
Why would you say you understand why Urby stopped debating? Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking? I thought the left was supposed to be so tolerant of other peoples beliefs and open minded about sharing ideas... I guess that only applies if you agree with them.
The economy was getting worse before Obama took office? I've known this was coming for about 4 years now, and are current economic state would probably be worse off if Obama hadn't taken office.
As for WMD's in Iraq, yes maybe they had WMD but everything, are intelligence, other country's intelligence, and all the inspectors that went in to Iraq have found NO sign of them. So we invaded a County, illegally based on are laws and international laws, we've spent $677,053,933,801 so far on the war, we have lost about 31,327 man and woman and what do we have to show for it? Are country is beyond broke, terrorist attacks on the world have not gone down if anything they have gone up.
"Someone disagrees with you and you can't change their mind so you just stop talking"
There is a point at witch saying the same things back and forth becomes destructive. When that point is reached you have to stand back and just say you have your views and I have my views.
PS. You shouldn't use FOX as a source, even FOX makes fun of how biased they are.
NOTE: I meant to say about 31,327 wounded and about 7,500 deaths. My bad, sorry.
this is how debate works.
who knows, maybe ill learn something or change my point of view.
...and if we are gunna use metaphors, you cant blame last year's coach 4 games into this season.
that being said, there were things bush did wrong. Many things in fact. but not everything that goes wrong is Bush's fault. Bush didnt rack up more debt in the last 6 months than any president has ever over his entire term. (even after adjusted for inflation) i thought this stimulus bill was supposed to fix everything? or at least start to... it has not. there is a damn good argument that it has made it worse. ... especially if you look at it from the standpoint of individual rights. cant prove that; heck, you cant even provide a single shred of data to support that claim. this argument is invalid.
yes, after the fact. but before the fact there was only ONE country that said there wasnt. ...and that was syria. I dont trust them as far as i can throw them (yes the entire country)
im still not saying the war was the right way to go, but if you are gunna enter a fight, get the facts right. a fraction of Obama's budget...
...for one year. link me on this number please. according to snopes the number is way lower. around 8 thousand. and according to The Associated Press on Thursday, February 19, 2009 US military deaths in the the Iraqi war were at 4,245 but way less broke than Obama's budget deficit of $1.8 TRILLION
please back this up with data. again, back that up with the link where they do so.
also...
they are conservative. but that does not mean that everything they say is a lie. conservatives are not monsters. liberals lie too. FOX news is just as Valid as any left-leaning Obama-loving network.
....and im not even a conservative...
Saying the economy would have been worse if Obama hadn't taken office isn't true at all because there is absolutly no way to know that. It is 100% speculation based on bias. That is like his claim that he has saved 150,000 jobs. He doesn't know for sure that those jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. There is NO government equation to figure the number of jobs possibly saved. It is speculation entirely.
Your numbers on the deaths in Iraq are very inflated, and I seriously doubt your figures about terrorist attacks are valid. I would really like to see some kind of facts on that. Also you can't say be invaded illegally because we didn't by our law, or international law. If what we did was illegal, then so was what Clinton did when he bombed a Tylenol factory. Truth be known, the same people that cry about invading Iraq are the same people who cried for military action in Darfur and Rawanda. Human rights are only important if a liberal says they are I guess... Because Sadam was one of the worst if not THE worst human right violaters in the world today. Also you can bash Fox News all you want, but when has there EVER been a claim that they lied or reported false news? Because I remember the left coast LA Times and a few others doing this, but not Fox News even as evil as you think they are. Most people on the left don't like Fox because they started to try and even the score a bit on media bias which is still unbelievably left leaning when it comes to TV news.
Lastly I would like to say that any debate at all is good because it opens up your mind to thoughts that you might not have considered otherwise. You just have to have an open mind to begin with. Just like your numbers on deaths in Iraq an terrorist attacks, I don't think this are acurate so I have been doing some research and will continue to after I post this. The only number I've been able to come up with was a little over 4,000. I'll check into this some more.
"I don't know anything about cars. I do know about business and I know about big business. And, you know, employees and all that sort of thing."
Seriously??? No doubt he is a very smart man, but why in the hell would you put him in charge or an auto company??? Next think you know they will be putting Star Bucks master blender in charge of full injection design for future models...
im not sure how much influence the Obama Administration has over GM (or will in the future) so i dont know if they will let him surround himself with the correct people.
as far as the if its the right person for the job...
we will have to see. I didnt think Obama had failed on his first day in office. Im not going to think this guy will fail in his first few days either.
Then read this - > http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/47141327.html
Awesome.
she said (of the Bush administration):
“WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”
i have never agreed with her more.
most people hate to pay taxes. voicing that opinion in a disgruntled way is not a crime. they have a right to disagree and be angry with any policy they want.
the government going after them for it is terrible.
...when people fear the government, there is tyranny.
noun. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
could someone explain to me how when the Obama administration says "Executive pay needs curbs, better management, across private sector" this is not inching in the direction of Fascism?
what if they dont wanna change the pay scale? is the government gunna fire the CEO and the board of directors and replace it with their own? are they gunna pass a law that will tell the private sector how much they can get paid?
how did we get to a point where i even have to think about questions like this?