Unions threaten Business

Ikari · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Shows me how you believe in govt. responsibility over personal responsibility. Where did I ever support improper govt. action? Liberals give away other's money every day on things they believe important. The difference between the two parties is one believes in equal opportunity while the other believes in equal outcome.

I saw you defending Medicade Part D just now. And all the subisidies (via tax payer dollars) to the big corporations and breaks they get which are not given to other smaller businesses. Which in the end establishes the corporate model of capitalism we have now over free market capitalism which would treat all entities equally. You've been giving away my money on things you believe are important. You spent it on Iraq, you spent it on Medicare, you spent it on improper regulations of the banking industry which broke the system, then you spent it on bailouts for the same corporations which just caused the problem in the first place.

The difference between the two parties is that one talks about one thing and the other talks about the opposite thing; but in the end they do the same damned thing. Functionally, y'all are the same, and y'all are destroying this Republic.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

EarlzP said:
Earning is one thing stealing is another, the money that the banking and mortgage companies made from the housing bubble was stealing, the money wall street brokers made is stealing.
Since it appears that business owners have no incentive to return to America maybe the government should get involved in the creation of wealth more openly, you know instead of creating wars to ensure the flow of oil to American corporations we could form government corporations to handle the oil from the ground to the pump that way we could lessen the impact on the consumer by controlling prices and put the profits back into the government for research and development of alternate energy sources

Oh, good lord, stealing? There are laws against stealing and if that is the case then prosecture which I believe is being done in some cases. Because you believe it is stealing doesn't make it hte case. Still on the war bit? Get over it, do you have the same outrage over Libya? What a conspiracy theorist you are. There is only one party that cares what you or anyone else makes or pays in taxes and that is the Democrat Party. Free markets set prices and no one forces you to buy from companies you deem unscrupulous.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

Ikari said:
I saw you defending Medicade Part D just now. And all the subisidies (via tax payer dollars) to the big corporations and breaks they get which are not given to other smaller businesses. Which in the end establishes the corporate model of capitalism we have now over free market capitalism which would treat all entities equally. You've been giving away my money on things you believe are important. You spent it on Iraq, you spent it on Medicare, you spent it on improper regulations of the banking industry which broke the system, then you spent it on bailouts for the same corporations which just caused the problem in the first place.

The difference between the two parties is that one talks about one thing and the other talks about the opposite thing; but in the end they do the same damned thing. Functionally, y'all are the same, and y'all are destroying this Republic.

Only one party doesn't care how much you pay in taxes or how much you make and that isn't the Democrat Party. As for Medicare Part D, please don't talk about legislation you don't understand. Incentive was added to the bill as was individual incentive to shop for better prices. That lowered costs, the results aren't debatable.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
temporary? for 10 years? LOL, good fortune of being in office while Clinton was in office? Where did welfare reform come from? Lower unemployment thanks to Engler now is credited to Clinton? LOL

You are making precious little sense in a lame effort to be clever.

Yes, temporary which lasted just as long as the national boom did.

Engler enjoyed his time in office during the Clinton years. He benefitted from that period of prosperity. His $32 million in tax cuts have handicapped the state long after he hit the road.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
You are making precious little sense in a lame effort to be clever.

Yes, temporary which lasted just as long as the national boom did.

Engler enjoyed his time in office during the Clinton years. He benefitted from that period of prosperity. His $32 million in tax cuts have handicapped the state long after he hit the road.

Right, there was no national boom from 2001 to 2007 when the GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion? In my book 8.9% unemployment down to 3.4% under a Republican Administration offset that 32 million you claim Engler took from the economy. Prove me wrong? Think those employed people paid anything in taxes? Typical liberal revisionist history.

EarlzP · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Oh, good lord, stealing? There are laws against stealing and if that is the case then prosecture which I believe is being done in some cases. Because you believe it is stealing doesn't make it hte case. Still on the war bit? Get over it, do you have the same outrage over Libya? What a conspiracy theorist you are. There is only one party that cares what you or anyone else makes or pays in taxes and that is the Democrat Party. Free markets set prices and no one forces you to buy from companies you deem unscrupulous.

And so since you believe in the free market why would you be against the government getting involved in some of the manufacturing or service industries, it's okay if Americans die to protect the interests of big business so why not let Americans share in the profits? Let me guess the government that is run by big business could not compete with big business, now that is just a guess.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

EarlzP said:
And so since you believe in the free market why would you be against the government getting involved in some of the manufacturing or service industries, it's okay if Americans die to protect the interests of big business so why not let Americans share in the profits? Let me guess the government that is run by big business could not compete with big business, now that is just a guess.

because the govt. isn't part of the free market, that is like a frog competing against an allegator. it isn't the role of the govt. to create individual wealth as that is the role of the private sector. Govt. prints money whereas business and the states don't. You really don't understand risk taking, investment in private business, P&L Responsibilities, shareholder responsibilities. None of those have anything to do with the govt.

Ikari · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Only one party doesn't care how much you pay in taxes or how much you make and that isn't the Democrat Party. As for Medicare Part D, please don't talk about legislation you don't understand. Incentive was added to the bill as was individual incentive to shop for better prices. That lowered costs, the results aren't debatable.

Oh, I understand it just fine. I have several friends and family in the pharmaceutical business, they knew what it was. It was a give away to the pharmaceutical companies (on the research and sales). To claim anything else is to not be honest about what it did. In the end, the large debt and spending and bloated size of government is not just the Democrats doing. The Republicans share equal blame on this one. Functionally, the two parties are rather equivalent. Peas in a pod.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

Ikari said:
Oh, I understand it just fine. I have several friends and family in the pharmaceutical business, they knew what it was. It was a give away to the pharmaceutical companies (on the research and sales). To claim anything else is to not be honest about what it did. In the end, the large debt and spending and bloated size of government is not just the Democrats doing. The Republicans share equal blame on this one. Functionally, the two parties are rather equivalent. Peas in a pod.

Democrats wanted a bigger, govt controlled program. Are you telling me that the consumer didn't benefit from Medicare Part D? Don't disagree that both parties have a spending problem, but there is only one that doesn't care how much money even you make and that is the party I will support in the absence of a better alternative that has a chance to win.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Right, there was no national boom from 2001 to 2007 when the GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion? In my book 8.9% unemployment down to 3.4% under a Republican Administration offset that 32 million you claim Engler took from the economy. Prove me wrong? Think those employed people paid anything in taxes? Typical liberal revisionist history.

I do not need to prove your numbers wrong because they are irrelevant to the story of what brought Michigan down.

I am not "claiming" Engler took $32 million from the State coffers. John Engler himself claims that and I gave you the link.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
I do not need to prove your numbers wrong because they are irrelevant to the story of what brought Michigan down.

You claimed that Engler cost the state 32 million dollars now prove it? I proved that Engler reduced the unemployment rate from 8.9% to 3.4% and those employed people helped offset any reduction in revenue. Prove me wrong?

VanceMack · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
I do not need to prove your numbers wrong because they are irrelevant to the story of what brought Michigan down.

Unions. Damned unions. Destroyed the auto industry. Killed Detroit. Damned Unions.

MaggieD · Mar 28, 2011

I absolutely do not understand how anyone could justify the UAW job bank program:

According to that document, the basic guarantee from the 1987 agreement is that no eligible employee will be laid off over the term of the agreement, except under the following specific circumstances. 1)Reduced customer demand, a maximum of 42 weeks over the life of the agreement (commonly known as loss of marketshare); 2)Acts of God or other conditions beyond the control of management; 3)Conclusion of an assignment known in advance to be temporary; and 4) Plant rearrangement or model changeover.

Eligible employees can not be laid off because of new technology (robots), sourcing decisions, or company-implimented efficiency actions. There are generally three states of layoff: temporary layoffs where workers know their return date, indefinite layoffs where workers get 48 weeks of unemployment benefits and a supplemental from their employer equal to 100 percent of your salary. After 48 weeks workers are reemployed by the Job Bank, at which time they receive 95 percent of their salary. They don’t get seniority, but they do continue to receive health benefits. While in protected status, employees may be assigned to training programs, certain non-traditional jobs, openings at other UAW locations (they only have to accept them if the job is within 100 miles of their home, otherwise they can stay in job banks), and other assignments “consistent with the intent of the program.”

Unraveling The UAW Job Bank | The Truth About Cars

This program was funded by GM to the tune of $2 billion by GM -- and the exact details kept under wraps by GM and the union.

But who do I really blame? GM. No wonder they went bankrupt as this is just the tip of the iceburg of the ridiculous union demands they agreed to. And, honestly, I can't understand why there wasn't a shareholder suit against management.

So, to put it into perspective, unions are greedy pigs. And those who negotiate with them are, too -- for I'll never believe these demands were agreed to for any other reason than stock prices/options/$$$ in CEOs pockets. Certainly this one made absolutely no sense for any other reason.

Edit: Perhaps there is hope --

The UAW has seen a dramatic decline in membership since the 1970s. Membership topped 1.5 million in 1979, falling to 540,000 in 2006. Then the Great Recession hit, with GM and Chrysler going bankrupt. Membership fell to 390,000 active members in 2010.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
You claimed that Engler cost the state 32 million dollars now prove it? I proved that Engler reduced the unemployment rate from 8.9% to 3.4% and those employed people helped offset any reduction in revenue. Prove me wrong?

What I want to prove is that you cannot read or comprehend. I gave you this before , many pages ago. Did ;you not read it then? Did you not comprehend it then? Did you not reproduce it in your own post #677? Why are you asking me this again?

Former Governors - Governor John Engler Biography

Governor Engler has signed 32 tax cuts into law, saving taxpayers nearly $32 billion. The state inheritance tax and capital gains taxes have been eliminated. Personal exemptions for children, seniors and the disabled have been increased. The personal income tax rate is being reduced to 3.9 percent -- the lowest level in a quarter century -- and Michigan's main tax on business is being phased out completely.

Got that?

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

VanceMack said:
Unions. Damned unions. Destroyed the auto industry. Killed Detroit. Damned Unions.

When you print my comment and then yours - there should be some relationship between the two. There is not in your rant.

In case you have not looked recently, unions are still there in the Auto biz and the companies are making big profits.

EarlzP · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
because the govt. isn't part of the free market, that is like a frog competing against an allegator. it isn't the role of the govt. to create individual wealth as that is the role of the private sector. Govt. prints money whereas business and the states don't. You really don't understand risk taking, investment in private business, P&L Responsibilities, shareholder responsibilities. None of those have anything to do with the govt.

Says who, you? I think I understand your position pretty well, you want a free market as long as it benefits you, I see no reason why the government can't get into the business end. There are lots of unemployed qualified people from white collar to blue collar that are looking for work so their is no employee skill sets that can't be satisfied, as you said we I mean the government does print the money so the start up capital is no problem. I think it would be great to see what would happen when a company owned by the people, run by the people emerged into the market place? Imagine every cent of profit could be used to employ Americans in America and towards expansion and R&D. The money would not be being used to ship our work overseas or hidden away in some swiss bank account nor would it be going to pay some outrageous salary and bonus packages to the top CEOs

You know what they say when it's your money you have to look a little harder at how you spend it

EarlzP · Mar 28, 2011

MaggieD said:
I absolutely do not understand how anyone could justify the UAW job bank program:

Unraveling The UAW Job Bank | The Truth About Cars

This program was funded by GM to the tune of $2 billion by GM -- and the exact details kept under wraps by GM and the union.

But who do I really blame? GM. No wonder they went bankrupt as this is just the tip of the iceburg of the ridiculous union demands they agreed to. And, honestly, I can't understand why there wasn't a shareholder suit against management.

So, to put it into perspective, unions are greedy pigs. And those who negotiate with them are, too -- for I'll never believe these demands were agreed to for any other reason than stock prices/options/$$$ in CEOs pockets. Certainly this one made absolutely no sense for any other reason.

Edit: Perhaps there is hope --

Maggie it is not very becoming for you to reference other people as "greedy pigs". The UAW negotiates a contract with the Company. Neither side has a gun to the head of the other, both sides have to agree to the new contract, If either side is not happy with the contract they should not sign it

MaggieD · Mar 28, 2011

EarlzP said:
Maggie it is not very becoming for you to reference other people as "greedy pigs". The UAW negotiates a contract with the Company. Neither side has a gun to the head of the other, both sides have to agree to the new contract, If either side is not happy with the contract they should not sign it

Guess I must listen to Gordon Ramsay too much. :rofl

Did you not notice I called both sides greedy pigs? Betcha' missed that because I agree with you.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
What I want to prove is that you cannot read or comprehend. I gave you this before , many pages ago. Did ;you not read it then? Did you not comprehend it then? Did you not reproduce it in your own post #677? Why are you asking me this again?

Former Governors - Governor John Engler Biography

Got that?

Right, now I can see why you are so upset. For some reason saving the taxpayers 32 billion is a cost to the state but creating 800,000 jobs has no affect on govt. revenue? I feel your pain.

Governor Engler has signed 32 tax cuts into law, saving taxpayers nearly $32 billion. The state inheritance tax and capital gains taxes have been eliminated. Personal exemptions for children, seniors and the disabled have been increased. The personal income tax rate is being reduced to 3.9 percent -- the lowest level in a quarter century -- and Michigan's main tax on business is being phased out completely.

Engler's economic policies have helped to create more than 800,000 jobs in Michigan, cutting the state's unemployment rate from over 9 percent the year he took office to 3.4 percent in 2000 - the lowest annual level ever recorded. For an unprecedented five years in a row, Michigan has led the nation with the most new factories and expansion projects.. As part of the nation's most forward-looking economic development strategy, $1 billion is being invested in a "Life Sciences Corridor" from Ann Arbor to Grand Rapids, and a high-tech cybercourt to hear business disputes is also in the works. In addition, Governor Engler's NextEnergy initiative is positioning Michigan to be an international cluster of innovation in the development and commercialization of alternative energy technologies, including hydrogen fuel cells.

Looks to me like Democrats took a thriving growing economy and destroyed it.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

EarlzP said:
Says who, you? I think I understand your position pretty well, you want a free market as long as it benefits you, I see no reason why the government can't get into the business end. There are lots of unemployed qualified people from white collar to blue collar that are looking for work so their is no employee skill sets that can't be satisfied, as you said we I mean the government does print the money so the start up capital is no problem. I think it would be great to see what would happen when a company owned by the people, run by the people emerged into the market place? Imagine every cent of profit could be used to employ Americans in America and towards expansion and R&D. The money would not be being used to ship our work overseas or hidden away in some swiss bank account nor would it be going to pay some outrageous salary and bonus packages to the top CEOs

You know what they say when it's your money you have to look a little harder at how you spend it

How is any entity that can print money benefit the free marrket capitalistic economy? That destroys business as there is no incentive to produce positive results. I have no problem competing in the private sector and did for 35 years. I have a record in that private sector that I am quite proud of so I am willing to take personal responsibility for my actions. Much of private business is run by the people, called shareholders who have a financial stake in the business, and individuals who benefit or face the consequences for their own actions. Compare that to the govt. where there are no consequences for failure, just print more money.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

from Conservative

Looks to me like Democrats took a thriving growing economy and destroyed it.

Now all you have to do is prove it with more than coincidence.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
from Conservative

Now all you have to do is prove it with more than coincidence.

You think it is a coincidence that during the Engler years unemployment dropped but during the Democrat Administration from 2001 on the unemployment rates rose while the national rates were dropping? You need to do better research because liberalism is making a fool out of you.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
You think it is a coincidence that during the Engler years unemployment dropped but during the Democrat Administration from 2001 on the unemployment rates rose while the national rates were dropping? You need to do better research because liberalism is making a fool out of you.

Waiting for you to prove your allegation with facts and analysis. The fool is you if you think you can tell me that the sun will come up tomorrow and it is you who made it so. You want to claim that John Engler turned Michigan into Paradise and the Democrats turned it into Hell - fine. Now prove it with a hell of a lot more than just coincidence.

Conservative · Mar 28, 2011

haymarket said:
Waiting for you to prove your allegation with facts and analysis. The fool is you if you think you can tell me that the sun will come up tomorrow and it is you who made it so. You want to claim that John Engler turned Michigan into Paradise and the Democrats turned it into Hell - fine. Now prove it with a hell of a lot more than just coincidence.

You have to prove to me that the 32 million in tax benefits to the consumer cost the state 32 million dollars in lost revenue when that seemed to have created 800000 jobs so where is the lost revenue? you don't think unemployment benefits cost the state? How much in unemployment benefits did those 800,000 new workers cost the state? that was your claim not prove it.

haymarket · Mar 28, 2011

Conservative said:
You have to prove to me that the 32 million in tax benefits to the consumer cost the state 32 million dollars in lost revenue when that seemed to have created 800000 jobs so where is the lost revenue? you don't think unemployment benefits cost the state? How much in unemployment benefits did those 800,000 new workers cost the state? that was your claim not prove it.

I do not have to prove anything of the sort. John Engler claims that he saved taxpayers $32 million dollars. So who saved the money? Obviously that was $32 million that stayed with the taxpayers and WAS DENEID TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. My kids would say "duh" to anybody who did not understand that.

Engler did not say that he saved SOME taxpayers $32 million while COSTING other Taxpayers $28 billion thus only losing $4 billion to the state. He uses the figure of $32 billion as a savings to ALL THE TAXPAYERS. A savings to the taxpayers is a LOSS to the state coffers. This is not rocket science.

Unions threaten Business

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.