Romney Takes Credit for the Auto Bailout

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Because man, I had a X 1/9, and it was way underpowered

Pete

But the gas mileage was killer, wasn't it? I'm still waiting for Fiat pick up truck though....

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It seems to me that conservatives (even ultra-right teabagger types) want all the services of a big government (Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, good roads...) They just don't want to pay for it.

I have to resist the urge to run em off the freeway here in Socal. How dare they use any interstate and lobby to not pay for it. Local control my ass...

[Charles]

Originally Posted by icenine

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to here what small government means....

Can't speak for Pete, but I have certain worries about a government which has grown so large that it is reduced to funding it's operations with deficit spending to such an extent that it is quite possible that it will destroy the currency.

A government so big that it has created myriad regulations which have caused the private sector becomes so uncompetitive that they are reduced to moving their operations offshore.

A government which which has reached the point of largess that is can use it's devalued currency to enforce it's will on everyone, by first creating an atmosphere where the states can no longer function without federal funding, and then denying that funding unless they dance to the tune of their federal masters.

A government which has reached the size that it no longer serves the people, but rather the people serve it.

I think we could do with a little less government, and for sure a smarter and less corrupt government.

Chas

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Just great your idea on welching on pensions and wages not to mention unfettering management to further erode the already weakened UAW. I guess that was an intended benefit of the bailout. Hadn't heard about that aspect. That is a win win my book. Sounds like a truly good course of action to take when a large employer decides to call it quits. They should never be allowed to play possum and shed their responsibility to the citizenry.

What is astounding to me is this cannibalistic mindset that unions are bad for the country. The country is it's citizenry not these corporations whose only purpose is profit. Without protection afforded by collective bargaining you end up with the citizenry reduced to wage slaves. It's such a simple concept.

No unions = no 40hr workweek, no unions = no five day workweek, no unions =no paid holidays, no unions = no child labor laws, no unions = no workplace safety standards, no unions =no paid sick leave, no unions= no liveable wages, no unions = no health insurance, no unions = no overtime.

So Whell, how many of these benefits do you enjoy in your place of employment?

More to the point why do you continue to accept these benefits in the face of your outspoken distaste for unions.

Why in the world would you accept blood money hard won by union workers and organizers of yesteryear? I'm truly curious as to your rationale cause it really escapes me.

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

[icenine]

Just imagine if Obama had let the Big Three go.. the Ford, GM and Chrysler trademarks would be held by companies that had no relationship to the original organizations just like the marques of Sansui,KLH and Akai are held today by businesses with no ties to the original products. Imagine ersatz cars being sold in China with the GM logo on them NOT made by GM but a Chinese car company. Imagine Obama running with that baggage. Oh he lost the big three would be the Tea Bagger mantra.

You know there is something wrong with anyone who wants the Big Three to go down...that is just not patriotic in any way if you ask me.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The strange practice of feathering their own bed that the corporations tend towards and throwing up their hands when the profitablility they envisioned didn't materialize isn't a valid justification to welch on their obligations. Time after time the unions renegotiate wages down when times are tough and it's never enough leads me to believe that the corporate model that's being followed is not a partnership with labor.

Again, there is no corporation with out labor. Labor + capital = corporation. Since capital has shown that it's only interest is growing itself, labor must protect itself through collective bargaining. A contract is a contract and obligations can't be tossed through bankruptcy court unless the law is corrupted.

Back in the Gilded Age when a worker was used up he was shown the door with no consideration nor compensation. That was the impetus for labor organizing itself and forcing the powers that be to acknowledge the fact that this behavior towards a citizen could no longer stand as business as usual.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

For a while. Until he (And others in the industry) realized it didn't bring the increases in productivity he expected, nor did it do much to curb interest in unionization. The plan wasn't working. Then what happened, Mike?

"....prior to Ford being unionized.", should be your first clue.
Your second clue should be the undeniable fact that employers rarely do anything substantial (willingly) unless they see some advantage to it, as we have all witnessed in real life experiences. Beyond that it is either job market conditions, contractual agreements or government mandate that influences wages, benefits and working conditions before any "goodness of the heart" kicks in.

I believe some time ago, I posted an entire thread on this subject, with references and all. (See; History forum, "Welfare Capitalism" thread.)

Spare us this "saintly benevolence" of employers nonsense. We're all adults here, nobody believes that fairytale. (Well, maybe some on YOUR side do.)

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The strange practice of feathering their own bed that the corporations tend towards and throwing up their hands when the profitablility they envisioned didn't materialize isn't a valid justification to welch on their obligations. Time after time the unions renegotiate wages down when times are tough and it's never enough leads me to believe that the corporate model that's being followed is not a partnership with labor.

Again, there is no corporation with out labor. Labor + capital = corporation. Since capital has shown that it's only interest is growing itself, labor must protect itself through collective bargaining. A contract is a contract and obligations can't be tossed through bankruptcy court unless the law is corrupted.

Back in the Gilded Age when a worker was used up he was shown the door with no consideration nor compensation. That was the impetus for labor organizing itself and forcing the powers that be to acknowledge the fact that this behavior towards a citizen could no longer stand as business as usual.

100% correct, and I thank you for yet another excellent post.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by icenine

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to hear what small government means....

Yeah, someone paid for me to go to school alright - my dad. Through local taxes.

SS is the biggest govenment sanctioned ripoff of all time and puts private ripoffs to shame. Ask me again why I don't trust the Feds with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

As a matter of fact, ALL those things you mention are paid by me and people like me. It's OUR money, not 'the governments'.

And as Chas says, it's completely out of control.

Originally Posted by bobabode

But the gas mileage was killer, wasn't it? I'm still waiting for Fiat pick up truck though....

LOL! Really, I liked the X1/9, it was the closest thing to a 'real' sports car I've ever owned. Once you got the jewel of an engine revved up it could be entertaining too, all 78 horses? worth Man, that thing handled like it was glued to the ground. You could turn people's hair white. But the seat didn't go back quite far enough, heat poured out of the dash, and I felt like if I bumbed into someone in a parking lot I'd be killed. Still, fun

Originally Posted by icenine

.....

You know there is something wrong with anyone who wants the Big Three to go down...that is just not patriotic in any way if you ask me.

Come now Ice, the correct thing to do is buy a Prius. Maybe a Volvo... Saab?

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

No, that's not correct AT ALL. Ford was a proponent of higher wages and shorter work weeks as a business case. His plants were suffering from heavy turnover because the work was tough and monotonous. He did it to increase productivity and reduce turnover, and it turned out to be a tremendously profitable move for Ford. It resulted in an influx of talent to the Ford labor pool: not just assembly line workers but designers, engineers, etc. It also dated back to 1915, quite a bit in advance of the labor strife that would visit that auto industry 10 - 15 years or so later.

Originally Posted by bobabode

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The rest of your post, to me, reads like a laundry list of your own prejudices or pre-conceptions against "big business" and "greedy corporate executives. Nothing I can do to address that, unless I can encourage you so source your information from multiple sources that might provide you with differing perspectives.

For example, on health insurance:

During the first half of the 20th century in the US, most health care service transactions were still "fee for service" and/or "direct pay" - the patient actually paid the doctor directly. It wasn't until the 1920's that some hospitals began offering services on a pre-paid basis. These arrangements ultimately lead to the creation and proliferation of the Blue Cross / Blue shield organizations nation-wide. However, the first comprehensive health insurance products go back as far as the 1890's.

The BCBS model was to negotiate discounts with medical service providers in exchange for creating a member organization that delivered a volume of customers to the medical service providers, along with an increased assurance of payment for services.

The rise of employer - sponsored plans was not directly due to unions or collective bargaining. It can be said that once health insurance became part of the employment/compensation landscape it also became a legitimate collective bargaining item. However, the rise of employer - sponsored plans in the 1940's was a combination of circumstances:

- the biggest factor was the wage controls enacted in 1942. Inflation was cooking the wartime economy and the Roosevelt administration took away wages as a tool for employers to use to compete for scarce workers. Expansion of benefit plans was allowed, however, and that's just what many employers decided to do to compete for and attract workers.

- Blue Cross / Blue Shield and other commercial insurance providers had products that had matured since their introduction 15 years or so earlier and the insurers were looking to expand their market share and product lines.

Also, since Roosevelt calculated that he probably couldn't get both Social Security AND universal health insurance, and instead prioritized the passage of Social Security, Roosevelt's administration left open the door for the proliferation of private medical insurance.

So, there you have it. Roosevelt, the father of the modern entitlement system, created the circumstances whereby the proliferation of employer - sponsored health plans have risen in the USA. Employers continue to expand their health benefit offerings throughout the post - WWII years, not able to foresee what the impact that increased demand for medical services (while shielding the consumer from the cost of those services) would have on the long term rise in health care service costs.

There's certainly other factors that are quite significant to the systematic delivery of health services. Also, the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, demographic changes, and the increase in unhealthy lifestyles have taken a significant on the delivery and cost of medical services. Those issues are relatively recent, however, and are laid over an already - entrenched system of employer - sponsored and government - sponsored health plans which are now viewed as 'entitlements", while their costs are becoming unsustainable.