GOP and the Auto bail out

it wasn't only republican senators, many democratic senators voted no.

yeah all those democratic senators from "red" states who are basically republicans and are in the control of the oil lobby

yeah, and somehow the LES is going to benefit from this... haha

Without reading petrfitz (I can only imagine what he's saying) there is nothing wrong with the car companies going bankrupt. What the Republicans wanted was a date certain by which the union would agree to specific wage reductions. What's wrong with that, if the bill also had a cramdown provision of 70% for bondholders, and basically wiped out shareholders?

The UAW's benefit structure is the problem - not for current workers, but for retirees. Somehow those benefits need to be cut, otherwise nothing is going to work. I'm very pro-union and was even a member of the UAW for a few years, but it's obscene to be paying laid off workers 90% of their wages for doing nothing. For retirees eligible for Medicare and Veterans' benefits, why is the company paying for additional healthcare benefits when it can't afford them?

unions will be the auto industry's downfall.

Unions create most of the problems in this country.

i thought that corrupt politicians who cow tow to the oil lobbiest and sell our countries future and car industry away would be the auto industry's downfall.

OR the lasck of nationalized healthcare causing the employees to have to pay ridiculous amounts of extra costs on top of manufacturing for their employees and retirees is actually the downfall of the auto industry.

i thought that the Republicans created most of the problems in this country

don't you think you'll find more traction for this on say Daily Kos?

Unions serve their purpose.

Actually, the lack of nationalized health care is killing our industry generally. Unions have been, for the most part, decimated since the eighties. Since then what has happened to profit distribution? I'm all for corporate incentives, but when the middle class is rapidly disappearing and the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, and when the top 1-5% of the population controls a greater and greater percentage of the country's wealth, I'm not sure it's time to blame the unions.

Julia, 40 democrats voted in favor, 3 against.

> Unions serve their purpose.

Which is?

Ensure ridiculous work rules?
Or ensure you can't get rid of lousy employees (see teachers union)
Or to buy elections?

The original purpose, which was to prevent abuse and substandard working conditions, is no longer necessary.

Now, its just a scam.

> Unions have been, for the most part, decimated since the eighties

And will increase rolls by an estimated 30% almost instantly if Obama's "Employee Free Choice Act" - which is a lie, it REMOVES secret ballots from union elections - passes.

A senate filibuster is the only hope against it.

Unions spent about $500 million to get obama elected, not to mention all the phone banks and such.

And now we will all be paying billions for it...

"Without reading petrfitz (I can only imagine what he's saying) there is nothing wrong with the car companies going bankrupt."

steve, I generally agree but the talk is that GM could go Chapter 7. This would be would be a disaster.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122903816924599853.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"GM, in a statement, said it is "deeply disappointed" that an agreement couldn't be reached. GM had told Congress it needs $4 billion by the end of the month or it might not be able to keep its operations going. The company added that it will "assess all of our options to continue our restructuring and to obtain the means to weather the current economic crisis."

Agreed on healthcare. We spend twice as much per capita as any industrialized nation in the world, and we have half to show for it.

New York is worse - twice the Medicaid spent per capita, half to show for it.

Ditto education.

what does that show? throwing money at a problem never works. it takes innovation and the self motivation to bring a nation out of the doldrums.

It is interesting that the Bush Administration is coming to the rescue. I think they just don't want to have yet another Herbert Hoover moment.

The GOP had already arrange a deal with Bush and Paulson. They would not have voted and spoke so stridently as a whole if the money wasn't clearly going to come from the Executive Branch. They could not afford politically to be blamed for the fallout. This way they get to stand up for conservative principles and keep their dwindling seats in congress. It's naive to think this wasn't all worked out already.

I don't doubt it....

"the talk is that GM could go Chapter 7."

Scare tactics, to avoid taking the pain. In a regular bankruptcy they would get government-backed DIP financing to restructure. But in a prepackaged bankruptcy the agreement is reached before bankruptcy is declared. Therefore, the company simultaneously enters bankruptcy and exits it. Financing through March 31 would do that.

The UAW did not want to take any hits. I rarely agree with this bunch of Republicans on economic matters, but they're right in this case. I think the UAW did it because they think they'll have it easier under the Obama administration. That's not likely to be the case.

> I think the UAW did it because they think they'll have it easier under the Obama administration.
> That's not likely to be the case.

Got to call a BIG bs there.

Obama wrote the damn union bill! Employer Free Choice Act is his.
He got $500 million in funding from them... and tons more in support.

They will be calling in their loan soon.

Now, admittedly, Obama has less cover to do so.... but him + a democratic congress, they're going to get a LOT of union payoffs in...

One thing about Obama is that he has, at least in transition, been acting far more centrist than left, pissing off a lot of progressives in the process. It might be too much to expect him to come down hard on the union, but, at this point, I wouldn't be shocked if he did.

It is not a scare tactic anymore but a real possibility. GM is in a world of shit. I doubt a traditional prepack would work here but we'll see. Stay tuned, this week is going to be more interesting than when Lehman exploded.

I can't believe it, but I actually agree with steve and nyc10022 in the same thread.

are Unions more to blame for killing our economy or the Republicans who decimated our lending and financial sysstems, and for years fought against feul standards for american cars, and nationalized healthcare that would have lowered the cost of car manufacturing?

the unions are in place pretty much only because the Republicans faught against nationalized healthcare and workers rights. If we had nationalized healthcare there is pretty much no need for unions, and the cost of retirees would be pretty much zero.

there isn't much need for unions now, and yet they exist.
Unions exist for their own benefit, plain and simple.

BTW, petrfitz, the bigger flaw in your argument is assuming that the workers create the unions nowadays. That they had a need and fought for it.

The actual facts show that unions are NOT supported by workers.

They are created by government.

Spitzer added 300k or so members to the UTF by executive order... all the home healthcare aides.

" Stay tuned, this week is going to be more interesting than when Lehman exploded."

if POTUS doesn't bail them out, I think you're right. If the cash flows to GM, then we'll return to the federally funded floatation of the economy.

I hate that it has to happen, but I still think it has to happen.

I'd love to see bankruptcies in those messes of companies, but it would do too much damage everywhere else to be worth the pain.

NYC10022 i see oyu have no argument that the lack of nationalized healthcare is the biggest cost on US manfucaturers, and that Unions exist because they are the ones that have to pick up the healthcare and retirement organization.

If you hate unions and want the US car industry to survive, then you must support nationalized healthcare.

I actually agree that HC is a mega drain on employers...
As are pensions...

And they wouldn't be as much so if not for the unions and ridiculous demands on such.

Full retirement after 20 years?

Our HC system is bloated, absolutely. But the unions have forced companies (and governments) to pay even more than they should have.

Actually, unionized workers' health care does cost a ton. That's because very few blue-collar workers receive decent, or even adequate, health care coverage. The difference thus seems extreme.

My husband is a partner in a law firm. As such, he is self-employed and we pay our own health care insurance premiums. We pay over $1500 a month for a policy that sucks. More and more Americans have less and less insurance, to the extent that they have it their percentage of premium payments, co-payments, and the amounts necessary to pay for things that are not covered or that have hit "limits" is skyrocketing. My daughter had to go for x-rays the other day to check the progress of a broken bone. The insurance company covered $35 out of $265. Can the average worker afford this, and can you blame organized labor for attempting to keep medical benefits?

nyc10022 - retirement would cost significantly less if retirees could count on nationalized health care. Then they wouldnt need pensions at all they could get bye on savings, 401K's, and social security.

It is the policies of the right - anti health care, anti middle class, anti worker that is ultimately causing the failure of our auto industry

I don't blame them for pushing for benefits. I blame them for pushing for 50 years of benefits for 20 years worth of work. I blame then for full pensions for 40 year olds.

BTW, wanna know WHY health care is so expensive.

ITS THE FUCKING UNIONS.

The SEIU is WHY your healthcare costs $1500, aboutready.

So, they're causing the exact problem you're defending them from trying to protect themselves from.

no healthcare is expensie not because of the unions its because of the republicans fighting against nationalized healthcare, fighting for deregulation of commercial heathcare industry - the same thing that killed the finance markets, and fighting for the few CEO's and shareholders of healthcare companies that rape and pillage citizens - just like the Wall street CEO's.

You blame the unions, the only reason the unions exist is to pick up the pieces for american workers after the policies of the republicans destroy them.

> no healthcare is expensie not because of the unions its because of the republicans fighting against
> nationalized healthcare

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Expenditures on labor are BY FAR the biggest portion of expense, and our costs blow away the world.

Nationalized healthcare has nothing to do with it... that just means who pays. I'm not saying its a good thing or if its a bad thing.

But who pays the bill does not determine what the costs are.

UNIONS AND REGULATION DO.

And the folks in the pocket of the unions are the democrats.

Really, petrftiz, this is one more thing you really know nothing about.

I'm not saying the Republicans are doing any better a job here, but the costs come from the unions.

petrfitz, you aren't even an American citizen, you should really have no input into our healthcare system or our government parties.

great, more thoughts on more topics from nyc10022, we have his anti-teacher views, anti-unions, anti-car companies. go away

Vwear, stop being an idiot again.

Teachers are great, including both of my parents.
Teachers unions sucks. And my parents will be the first to tell you that.

When they ensure that the city spends $100 million on teachers they can't fire for bad performance, ensure that we can't pay more to the teachers who do their jobs well (and there are a lot), and keep new teacher salaries low so lousy old tenured teachers can make 6 figures for life, AND when they take a big chunk of teacher pay to cover lobbying costs.... I tell you that the teacher's union is the worst thing that every happened to teachers.

I also like cars and good car companies. I don't like ones that waste everyone'e money.
Toyota is great. Tesla is great.

The welfare boys in Detroit are not.

"petrfitz, you aren't even an American citizen, you should really have no input into our healthcare system or our government parties."

I rememember the biggest complaints I ever heard about the American way of life were from the Russians right before the USSR fell apart...

thanks for that helpful comment

anytime.

For all the people who are blaming the Union and their refusal to lower wages for people who are already in the bottom...

I don't hear you (or your republican hubs) advocating pr insisting on pay or wage reduction for AIG or the banks who have taken and will take much much much more from the auto industry. Or, for that matter, a pay reduction of auto industry management.

Hypocrites.

don't lie, putz...

I agree that they should have reductions for the bailout folks, and have said so MANY times.

> I don't hear you

Listen before you make crap up.

Actually, the unions are not why health care is so expensive. My father was union, I grew up covered by BC/BS, which I believe until not too long ago was nationalized? Health care costs were quite reasonable. Unions have been around for years, the health care crisis is a much more recent development with many causes, but I don't believe the health insurance companies have been going broke, it's been the people.

I agree with vmerki, paycuts for all at AIG. If you're going to demand a working business model, and proof thereof, for one business, do so for all. Tell AIG it has to have all its ducks in a row by March or it can bloody damn well pay back every cent because that's one heap that's stinky.

"It is not a scare tactic anymore but a real possibility."

Then if things are really that bad why are we bailing them out at all? To pretend like they're farmers, pay them not to grow anything?

Why do people read petrfitz?

The health care union was not this corrupt in the past. Spend 20 seconds actually looking at their tactics in the last 15 years, and you wouldn't be so naive.

Unions had nowhere near the government power they do now. You can't get elected without them.

We had teachers unions before, too. Doesn't mean they're not 100x worse now.

"Tell AIG it has to have all its ducks in a row by March or it can bloody damn well pay back every cent because that's one heap that's stinky"

Should we have done the same for the banks?

I think you are underestimating the impact of counterparty risk....

I'm mixed about the bank bailout, but I really have no pity for the big three.

The big three autos have been in trouble for years... it's just that nobody wanted to admit it. The lack of innovation is staggering and very... well "American".

Half jokingly, once Hertz decided to spin off from Ford, they decided not to buy thousands upon thousands of crappy Taurus' (you know the best selling car in America for a while). Coincidentally, that was around the begin of the fall of Ford.

nyc10022, don't call everyone who disagrees with you names. It's hardly sporting.

Unions were once THE political force in this country. On what basis do you claim that their political power has increased during the Reagan and post-Reagan trickle down years? I didn't delve too deeply, but took a look-see at some data. In 2004 private-sector union employees fell to 7.9% of that work force, about half the level of 1983 (first year bls numbers were available). 12.5% of all workers were union, down from 20.1% in 1983.

I'm not underestimating anything, I am well aware that couterparties, post-Lehman, rule. I wouldn't be surprised if the ripple effect of letting GM go under wouldn't shock the bejesus out of Washington and Wall Street also, which is why I doubt it will be allowed to go under. An orderly bankruptcy proceeding with the gov guaranteeing debtor financing would seem to be the way to go.

The big three really need to reinvent themselves like apple did. They've been coasting for far too long.

> nyc10022, don't call everyone who disagrees with you names. It's hardly sporting.

Disagreeing with me is fine, and, yes, that doesn't deserve names.

But outright lying accusations... sorry, putz was being nice...

> On what basis do you claim that their political power has increased during the Reagan and post-
> Reagan trickle down years?

Because it went from power from membership to power from legislation. In that regard, it is unprecedented. And, much more dangerous in that there is no opposing force anymore.

Unions were damn strong years ago... but they had counterparties who could fight back.

Now the unions and the politicians are in bed together... with no ability to push back on them.

Notice how business campaign contributions have been restricted... but not so the unions.

Unions are more dangerous than ever.

Also, if you want to play the "there are less of them game", don't forget...

1) not in healthcare
2) not in teaching
3) not in government

and, we will have 30% more once they complete their buying of the democratic party (the employee "free choice" act).

nyc10022.. you the man! or woman? It's like child labor laws as it pertained to Brtiney (when she was 16). Unions served their purpose in the 20' and 30's.

I've got an idea, let get all of zimbabwe to take UAW jobs for 1/50 of their pay, clean water, shelter and food to turn a screw and move some tires. In 5 years time all the guest workers can leave and all the UAW workers can come back from zimbabwe and compete for work (this includes all the retirees).

Boy a situation where a bunch of people collect much more benefits from the back of current workers? OMG! it's a mini-me Social Security!!!!

nyc10022 - funny how you blame all the countires ills on the worker and those who represent the worker. Why do hate Americans so much?

I have never heard you rail against the Republicans for their deregualtion policies and blind eye toward Wall Street raping and pillaging over half of the entire country's personal wealth and credit markets?

You are a partisan moron who loves those who destroyed the country and you hate Americans who work for a living.

Yes, unions were needed in the 20s/30s. But employment law is significantly different now.

Now unions are there to protect the jobs of folks who shouldn't have them in the first place... bad teachers, janitors who sleep through their shifts - had that in college - and folks who build lousy cars folks don't want.

The growth has come from non-union work. Tech, finance, information, the things that have moved this country ahead. Except for government, of course. The big boondoggle... lots of useless growth there.

Good to see petrfitz with his biased, small-minded, extreme left political hack rants again.

They should make a product that people want. The UAW, Management, Shareholders and Bondholders should all be wiped out because their business model doesn't work. Why should we save things that don't work? Do we want to give Madoff TARP money to keep his Ponzi going too?

What's real funny is that nobody actually that far left would cry and scream "bitter renter", or engage in all the other terribly stupid things petrfitz does to demean people who are blue-collar. But then again, do we really need another piece of evidence that petrfitz is a lying broker shill? No? Good.

so LIC - you also think that Unions do more damage to the country that the recent Republican administration?

What damage did the unions do in comparison to wiping out our credit markets, stock market, real estate industry, military, and employment?

> Do we want to give Madoff TARP money to keep his Ponzi going too?

lol

I'd love to see many of these places destroyed... just not right now. If it didn't happen in the last few years, they'll have to do in in a year or two.

> so LIC - you also think that Unions do more damage to the country that the recent Republican
> administration?

Absolutely.

1) There is a democratic congress, has been for years
2) Its over.

> What damage did the unions do in comparison to wiping out our credit markets, stock market, real
> estate industry, military, and employment?

Well, we'll start with the republican administration not doing that, that took a whole lot of work from a whole lot of people, particularly Barney Frank.

But, leave that aside...

How about..

bankrupting tons of municipalities (just want to see what happens)
Bankripting states
increasing the cost of business by america by, what, 15%?

If you don't think we are eternally screwed by union demands, you are as uneducated as you sound.

The stock market will recover, housing will get back to where it needs to be.

But the american economy is driving by people making things productively, and nothing stands in the way of that more than the unions.

Pick up "while america aged" as your first lesson.

Good points nyc10022. And to say that Republicans are solely to blame for all the damage to the economy is just idiotic.

"And to say that Republicans are solely to blame for all the damage to the economy is just idiotic."

Solely? No. Huge majority? Absolutely.

LICC, do you really support what the past administration has done? I am rather left of center, but I still respect some Republican core ideals - small and effective government. The thing is... Bush does not represent these ideals AT ALL. Are you supporting him because you agree with where he's taking your party, or because there's no other alternative?

> Solely? No. Huge majority? Absolutely.

Tech guy, you clearly don't know anything about this topic, either. Please go away.

Clinton repealed glass steagall. Barney Frank fought Fannie Mae reform, saying it was fine. We had a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS through most of this, where ridiculous subsidies were created, and everyone was asleep at the wheel. Bush is clearly a putz, but if left wingers think all they have to do is get rid of him and things are great, we are absolutely screwed.

NYC10022 - you are an idiot. the Glass Stiegal act was repealed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[9] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[10]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999

any more lies NYC10022?

Milton Friedman screwed America, many other countries, and continues to do so from the grave. Now that's impressive. Obama is way too close to the Chicago Boys for my taste.

> was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999
> any more lies NYC10022?

Wait, let me get this straight... you went to wikipedia and noted how Clinton signed it.... and are claiming that me saying he did was a lie.

Wow. You proved me right then complained?

Then again, I'm not surprised given the crap I've heard out of your mouth.

btw, you also spelled it wrong.

And, we all know you didn't know this, because we had to tell you what it was a few months ago (check the threads).

Not only did you prove me right, you also ignored the Barney Frank point...

blah blah blah, does anyone really care to hear from nyc10022 and his stupid opinions?

obviously, you do...

does my #1 fan want an autograph?

I think Democrats and Republicans share the blame fairly equally. I'm sure petr has no clue about the effect of Gramm Leach Bliley (which as he points out was passed with a large majority of Congress, both Republican and Democrat). The Act's permitting consolidating banks and securities firms actually has helped in the financial crisis. People trying to blame Republicans by pointing to Gramm Leach are just partisan hacks. The two main de-regulatory problems in the securities industry was the lifting of caps on leverage by securities firms from 12x to over 40x, and the mark-to-market rules. Getting rid of the uptick rule was dumb too, but the other ones had a worse effect. The Republicans aren't solely or "huge majority" to blame for those rules, it was bipartisan. I grant that Cox has been an awful SEC Chairman, and that falls on the Bush administration. The handling of FNMA and FHLMC, which is a major factor in all these problems, was more of a Democrat issue (especially Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, etc.).
I don't like Bush and so far, I'm liking what Obama has been doing. Even if I don't agree with all of his policies, he certainly will bring a much higher level of competence to the administration.

nyc10022
22 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse obviously, you do...

does my #1 fan want an autograph?

yes, will it look like Eddie Wilson?

LICC: Financial regulation aside, you don't think we'd be able to weather this recession quite a bit better if we didn't have such a huge financial sink of a war? We might be better off if the government spent more on infrastructure an alternative energy than catering to oil interests?

well said, LICC... I'm in 99% agreement with you.

Hopefully pete and tech_troll will be quiet and just read. Would have served them both well a long time ago...