• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, except "union member" and "working class" are not the same, as is evidenced by the fact that there are millions upon millions of "working class" members of this society and only a very small number of union members.
indeed we are part of the working class....we have jobs we go to, we have bills we pay, houses we pay a mortgage on, and other local businesses that depend on us having jobs.
 
you seem not to appreciate that the former shareholders in GM lost their ass
it had no equity, making their stock essentially worthless
but by preserving the manufacturer, it also preserved manufacturing jobs in a time of jobs decline
by preserving the dealerships, it preserved the jobs of those who worked in them
by preserving GM, those suppliers that sell to GM kept their contracts and thus the employees needed to fulfill those contracts

we also preserved a competitor for ford ... no need for ford to enjoy a monopoly ... especially since GM is a major federal contractor
another self serving aspect for the government is to allow GM to cover employee pensions rather than transfer that substantial obligation to the federal pension benefit guaranty corporation ... which would certainly transfer that debt to the taxpayer in the event of GM's demise

The Ford monopoly argument fails. Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hundai, BMW, et al. all have business centers in the US, which provide US jobs and sell product in US markets. There would have been no such monopoly.
 
indeed we are part of the working class....we have jobs we go to, we have bills we pay, houses we pay a mortgage on, and other local businesses that depend on us having jobs.

Yeah, and you're only 12% of the workforce in this country. Disallowing bargaining rights for 12% of the workforce (public, at that, in most cases) is hardly an attack on the "working class". it's just another hyperbolic argument used to stir anger and reaction in people to support a cause that doesn't need supporting anymore. There are laws in place to provide protections that unions once fought for. The original premise for unions no longer exists. Disallowing 150 people from getting an automatic 10% pay raise every year and instead requiring them to earn a raise based on performance? Not an attempt to stifle the middle class. People can spew fear-monger BS all day, but some of us aren't stupid enough to keep buying it.
 
you don't understand the lead time required in the auto industry to bid on new work, to get molds, and dies, to a new manufacturer, and have that manufacturer actually producing usable parts...i work for a parts supplier, i also served as chairperson for my uaw local in my facility, and had talks with management when the economy was nosediving, they were very worried bout gm closing up shop, closing down lines, as it would have effectively killed 15-30% of our business at the time, and they were worried that they would have to also start with layoffs ....a drawn out bankruptcy would have seriously crimped the cash flow of my company, as they would not be getting paid for work already shipped out, and when the courts decided on a payment plan for creditors, we probably would have only gotten pennies on the dollar...all of this would have led to 30-50% of the workforce being forced into layoffs, and the possibility of a few of our sister plants being closed. to just sit back and say 'we should have let them fail' and that 'others would take their place', i have a problem with, as few would have been able to get banks lined up, and fewer would have wanted to step in and buy facilities with the economy in the state it was in....alot of people would have suffered for a long, long , long, time, many small business would have went belly up, and we would still be a long way off from an economic recovery.

Other companies would have taken up the slack. At no time was there a threatened loss of vehicles.
 
Yeah, and you're only 12% of the workforce in this country. Disallowing bargaining rights for 12% of the workforce (public, at that, in most cases) is hardly an attack on the "working class". it's just another hyperbolic argument used to stir anger and reaction in people to support a cause that doesn't need supporting anymore. There are laws in place to provide protections that unions once fought for. The original premise for unions no longer exists. Disallowing 150 people from getting an automatic 10% pay raise every year and instead requiring them to earn a raise based on performance? Not an attempt to stifle the middle class. People can spew fear-monger BS all day, but some of us aren't stupid enough to keep buying it.
the laws are only any good if they are enforced, and laws can be changed on a whim....what good is having a 'law' if there are no 'police' to enforce them? answer honestly, without the rhetoric.
 
Other companies would have taken up the slack. At no time was there a threatened loss of vehicles.
apparently you paid no attention to what i posted, or have chosen to ignore it. i work in the industry, i've sat at the table with management, i do have some idea of what i'm talking about.
 
the laws are only any good if they are enforced, and laws can be changed on a whim....what good is having a 'law' if there are no 'police' to enforce them? answer honestly, without the rhetoric.

There are methods and means of enforcing the labor laws. There are state-level advocacy groups and a court system designed specifically to determine whether or not a law was violated for any reason, not just in relation to labor. Unions are not the enforcers, and to imply that they are is silly. Bargaining for across-the-board pay raises, life time guaranteed pensions and health care, et al is not enforcing labor law...it's putting undo burden on industry.
 
apparently you paid no attention to what i posted, or have chosen to ignore it. i work in the industry, i've sat at the table with management, i do have some idea of what i'm talking about.

I have no doubt you feel right from your perspective.

But do you feel that there would have been a shortage of vehicles for the American public?

How long would it have taken before they would have to start walking?
 
Now isn't that special? Tell that to the 15 plus million Americans unemployed and to all taxpayers that will have to pay for the 4 trillion Obama has added to the debt/

Why did the republicans vote against the jobs bill then?

The record that matters come from BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury

Then run along now, go find the data and quote it...

Intelligence gathered over a six year span of time and a mistake made by Osama's courier are the factors leading to his death. Obama continued along a path laid down by investigators under Bush's presidency. The intelligence communities, seals, and both presidents are responsible for Osama.

Maybe you'd like it worded this way instead... bush FAILED to get Osama.

True believers when confronted with reality will often become dismissive in nature, this is done to avoid the reality of a current situation. Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us.

Sounds very much like the vast majority of right wingers I've run into here on the internets.

Yes, Obama went in with a rifle and shot Osama in the eye. You're right. It was all Obama. His plans, his ideas, his suggestions, his investigation, his spy work, his intelligence that he gathered. All him. Yup.

Obama authorized the mission, while bush forgot all about osama and attacked Iraq based on lies...

FYI, Obama's mortgage plans to help "save" homeowners and prevent defaults? Looks like it might have worn off: Mortgage Defaults

remind me, who was it that caused the problem in the first place? OHHHH, that's right, the republicans.
And don't think for a second that I support the government ownership of private business in any scenario. Just like I don't support subsidies.

GLORY BE!! ANOTHER RIGHT WINGER HAS SEEEEEEN THE LIGHT!!!

can I now put you down as being against subsidizing the oil companies?

but the neocons believe we should have allowed the firm to die off, together with its many, many jobs, its dealerships, the employees of those dealerships, and its array of suppliers and their employees

damn inappropriate government intervention!

republicans don't care about workers, they only cater to the whims of the rich and powerful.

Corporate welfare in the liberal world is ok when it bails out unions

Unions are comprised of workers... why do you republicans hate the working class?


Had Palin been President do you think she would have let gone under? And what do you think would be the repercissions ?

yep... like all the other republicans, they love big business, but hate the workers.

..so you continue to do it? Why would you even bother posting anything at all if it doesn't contribute to the topic at hand, or some derivation there of? You want things to be your way? Think your way is the best way? Then talk about it instead of just insulting everything in opposition to you or your ideology. You're wasting space in the thread by doing what you're doing.

and your reason for continuing is??
Actually many millions saw him watching it go down on TV.

You've been misinformed.

It was on TV? really... what channel? do you think we can we find it on On Demand?

they do
but not also result in the loss of many American manufacturing jobs
and the dealerships
and the employees of the dealerships
and the supplier
and the employees of the suppliers

more workers... they just don't care about any of them losing their jobs, republicans only care about the uber rich.

all worth it, just collateral damage, as long as we can get rid of the damn unions, it is all good, who cares if the economy tanked even further? as long as the unions were gone, why should we care? a democrat is president...who cares if more people than actually worked at the auto companies lost there jobs? who cares if the local economy of areas around these auto plants took a huge hit? we could get rid of the unions, that is all that matters, right?.....at least this seems to be the opinion of many conservatives here.

Sadly, you are correct, republicans love helping the rich even those republicans that don't qualify as being rich...

Right, we need the liberals like you to keep them dependent and keep them from raising themselves up to a better class. We all know how great unions are at gaining and keeping power. Union greed is never discussed yet union membership keeps dropping because of that greed. Union management has proven to be a bunch of thugs who are there simply to maintain union power. The hell with the consumer and the U.S. Economy.

Proof... cmon Con, surely you have a link or two sequestered somewhere to provide that will substantiate your claims...

If a Republican was President that would not affect the economy at all because the economic fairy godmother would step in.

just like the FGM did when bush was presidente...

We don't know what a Republican would do today but Obama won because he told the people what he would do and failed miserably. His results speak for themselves, results that you continue to ignore.

PROOF!!! Got any??? without proof you are just offering us your opinions... So run along now, you have lots of articles and links to find to substantiate your claims of this or that...

my unions membership is up, and i suspect as the economy recovers, and the way the repubs have been going after unions lately, that number of union members will start to rise, as more and more people come to the realization that republicans don't have the average working man and woman's interest at heart.

Quite a few of them showed up in Wisconsin, as I recall.

The only way there would be a loss of jobs is if people stopped buying vehicles. Many companies, automobile and otherwise, have gone out of business in the past and that did not mean that people had to walk to work. Other successful companies simply took their place and increased their number of workers.

There will be other cars manufactured, other dealerships, other suppliers, etc. Unless there are no cars being made the public will not be effected. Having governments bail out unsuccessful businesses can have a far larger and harsher effect.

Preserving jobs or not preserving jobs... hmmm, what a dilemma. Obviously as witnessed by posts from these republicans, the republicans don't care about preserving jobs. Doesn't matter to them, doesn't affect them.

That's just one of the reasons why Barrack Obama is so frequently compared to Jimmy Carter.

by whom? someone on the fox noise machine?

you don't understand the lead time required in the auto industry to bid on new work, to get molds, and dies, to a new manufacturer, and have that manufacturer actually producing usable parts...i work for a parts supplier, i also served as chairperson for my uaw local in my facility, and had talks with management when the economy was nosediving, they were very worried bout gm closing up shop, closing down lines, as it would have effectively killed 15-30% of our business at the time, and they were worried that they would have to also start with layoffs ....a drawn out bankruptcy would have seriously crimped the cash flow of my company, as they would not be getting paid for work already shipped out, and when the courts decided on a payment plan for creditors, we probably would have only gotten pennies on the dollar...all of this would have led to 30-50% of the workforce being forced into layoffs, and the possibility of a few of our sister plants being closed. to just sit back and say 'we should have let them fail' and that 'others would take their place', i have a problem with, as few would have been able to get banks lined up, and fewer would have wanted to step in and buy facilities with the economy in the state it was in....alot of people would have suffered for a long, long , long, time, many small business would have went belly up, and we would still be a long way off from an economic recovery.

Which is exactly what the republicans wanted to have happen... destroy the economy who cares who gets hurt in the demise, it won't be the rich.
indeed we are part of the working class....we have jobs we go to, we have bills we pay, houses we pay a mortgage on, and other local businesses that depend on us having jobs.

Sadly, the rich and their minions don't seem to realize this...
 
There are methods and means of enforcing the labor laws. There are state-level advocacy groups and a court system designed specifically to determine whether or not a law was violated for any reason, not just in relation to labor. Unions are not the enforcers, and to imply that they are is silly. Bargaining for across-the-board pay raises, life time guaranteed pensions and health care, et al is not enforcing labor law...it's putting undo burden on industry.
indeed unions do serve the purpose of helping to ensure that laws are enforced, and to lobby for laws that protect workers and their rights. without someone holding those who make laws feet to the flames, lobbyists for corporate interests would roll back many laws on the books..laws that protect worker safety, workers rights, laws regulating child labor, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, to believe otherwise is silly, if not very naive.......oh yes, unions most certainly do serve a purpose here. thank God for them.


also, what is your problem with unions? do you have something against a group of people working together to improve their lot in life? is it wrong to work together to get maximum value for your labor? do you support businesses that join together and fund groups that lobby congress, and state legislatures, for laws that benefit them? or are you ok with business being all powerful in this country, and the labor force being the equivalent of serfs, begging for scraps at the master's table?
 
Last edited:
How on earth did this thread become "All Obama all the time: Talk Radio"?
 
It is not government's job to pick winners and losers regardless the size of the company or industry.

If they fail, become obsolete, sign bad and costly contracts with their employees or suppliers, that is their problem. Someone else will pick up the pieces and start over, or it will be broken up into smaller useful pieces by others.

.
 
It is not government's job to pick winners and losers regardless the size of the company or industry.

If they fail, become obsolete, sign bad and costly contracts with their employees or suppliers, that is their problem. Someone else will pick up the pieces and start over, or it will be broken up into smaller useful pieces by others.


.

So you are against government giving tax breaks to one business over others providing them with an advantage enabling them to be a winner?
 
Why did the republicans vote against the jobs bill then?



Then run along now, go find the data and quote it...



Maybe you'd like it worded this way instead... bush FAILED to get Osama.



Sounds very much like the vast majority of right wingers I've run into here on the internets.



Obama authorized the mission, while bush forgot all about osama and attacked Iraq based on lies...



remind me, who was it that caused the problem in the first place? OHHHH, that's right, the republicans.


GLORY BE!! ANOTHER RIGHT WINGER HAS SEEEEEEN THE LIGHT!!!

can I now put you down as being against subsidizing the oil companies?



republicans don't care about workers, they only cater to the whims of the rich and powerful.



Unions are comprised of workers... why do you republicans hate the working class?




yep... like all the other republicans, they love big business, but hate the workers.



and your reason for continuing is??


It was on TV? really... what channel? do you think we can we find it on On Demand?



more workers... they just don't care about any of them losing their jobs, republicans only care about the uber rich.



Sadly, you are correct, republicans love helping the rich even those republicans that don't qualify as being rich...



Proof... cmon Con, surely you have a link or two sequestered somewhere to provide that will substantiate your claims...



just like the FGM did when bush was presidente...



PROOF!!! Got any??? without proof you are just offering us your opinions... So run along now, you have lots of articles and links to find to substantiate your claims of this or that...



Quite a few of them showed up in Wisconsin, as I recall.



Preserving jobs or not preserving jobs... hmmm, what a dilemma. Obviously as witnessed by posts from these republicans, the republicans don't care about preserving jobs. Doesn't matter to them, doesn't affect them.



by whom? someone on the fox noise machine?



Which is exactly what the republicans wanted to have happen... destroy the economy who cares who gets hurt in the demise, it won't be the rich.


Sadly, the rich and their minions don't seem to realize this...

Bush didn't fail to get Osama, intelligent that led to Osama originated during the Bush presidency and that trail was continued under Obama.

The origins of the housing bust lie squarely with legislature promoted by and inacted under Carter and Clinton. Forgive me for not knowing off the top of my head who controlled the legislature under Carter..I wasn't yet alive when he ran the country. As for Clinton, yeah...primarily republicans...but he signed the bill, so he gets partial credit. So I guess the correct response is, "both parties caused the mortgage meltdown".

I've never supported oil subsidies, or farm subsidies, or energy subsidies. I doubt you'll find a post I've made in opposition to that stance.

I wasn't insulting randel, I was calling for him to contribute to the debate, which he has since done, and which I appreciate much more than lame insults and pointless accusations against the opposition.

There, I think that covers everything you addressed to me.
 
indeed unions do serve the purpose of helping to ensure that laws are enforced, and to lobby for laws that protect workers and their rights. without someone holding those who make laws feet to the flames, lobbyists for corporate interests would roll back many laws on the books..laws that protect worker safety, workers rights, laws regulating child labor, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, to believe otherwise is silly, if not very naive.......oh yes, unions most certainly do serve a purpose here. thank God for them.


also, what is your problem with unions? do you have something against a group of people working together to improve their lot in life? is it wrong to work together to get maximum value for your labor? do you support businesses that join together and fund groups that lobby congress, and state legislatures, for laws that benefit them? or are you ok with business being all powerful in this country, and the labor force being the equivalent of serfs, begging for scraps at the master's table?

I have a problem with paying more and getting less from unionized industries because members of unions demand so much for what they do. I have a problem with lifelong pensions and healthcare benefits after retirement. I have a problem (particularly in public unions) with funding somebody's retirement when they aren't. I find it disturbing that 150 people can demand automatic pay raises above inflation and cost-of-living increases, without performance requirements, while suffocating non-unionized workers who are trying to enter unionized industries.
 
Disneydude I think there is a real possibility that she will run, but I don't think she has any chance of becoming the republican candidate. What do you think? You should check out pollvote.info, it's another great forum for sharing political views.
 
TheStripey1;1059528684]Why did the republicans vote against the jobs bill then?

Because of the burden it put on the states after start up. The "jobs bill" passed so what were the results?

Then run along now, go find the data and quote it...

Why, you will just ignore it as you continue to drink the Kool-aid


Unions are comprised of workers... why do you republicans hate the working class?

Right, the Republicans hate the working class as they want to keep their jobs just like Democrats. The American people are smarter than you give them credit for in that they are rejecting unions. As has been reported less than 12% of the workforce is union so stop making it bigger than it is. It has also been reported that up to 40% of those union members are conservative. Many union employees are forced to join the unions. those are the people I feel sorry for and the people Republicans are really trying to help.


yep... like all the other republicans, they love big business, but hate the workers.

Project much?
 
So you are against government giving tax breaks to one business over others providing them with an advantage enabling them to be a winner?

In a word... Yes.

.
 
Nice Dodge of the question con.....I expected as much.

He's pretty limber for an old guy!

And he just won't go down!

Of course he has admitted to being a collective of ideas, kinda like the Borg.

Artificial, as it were.
 
I have a problem with paying more and getting less from unionized industries because members of unions demand so much for what they do. I have a problem with lifelong pensions and healthcare benefits after retirement. I have a problem (particularly in public unions) with funding somebody's retirement when they aren't. I find it disturbing that 150 people can demand automatic pay raises above inflation and cost-of-living increases, without performance requirements, while suffocating non-unionized workers who are trying to enter unionized industries.
'paying more and getting less'...nothing but rhetoric here....i do agree that you should help fund your own retirement....as for 'demanding'...uh, no, this was negotiated....and when the contract is up, can be negotiated down....suffocating non union workers? no such thing going on.
 
He's pretty limber for an old guy!

And he just won't go down!

Of course he has admitted to being a collective of ideas, kinda like the Borg.

Artificial, as it were.

Comes with exerience and learning how to do actual research to get verifiable data. Facts always confuse ideologues and I learned a long time ago to "trust but verify" something Obama cult followers will never do. Nothing artificial with me at all, what you see is what you get, facts, logic, and common sense. Prove me wrong and I will admit it. Too bad many here aren't like that at all.
 
Sorry, it's not my job to prove your statements incorrect, it's your responsibility to prove that they are correct IF they are.

But since you balk at the task, the only conclusion the lurkers and guests can draw is that you are indeed, incorrect.

waves to the guests and lurkers...

Waves back.:2wave:
 
Yes, they lost their ass, where they bailed out? You believe that GM would have shut the door? On what basis? "We" didn't have to do this but since Obama said we did that makes it right? Private businesses succeed and fail and it isn't the government's business to take over any of them

GM was in bankruptcy
which means it was insolvent
which means it did not have access to capital necessary to keep its doors open
which means it would have been sold off as a chapter 7 debtor but for the availability of the taxpayer bailout
the government intervened and provided capital because the survival of this major manufacturer meant the preservation of jobs not only by GM but by secondary and tertiary firms dependent on this company's survival
we can see from your posts that you are unable to comprehend that preserving a job is as beneficial to our nation's economy as assisting in the creation of a job
an understanding of government, business and/or finance is not in evidence by your posts
 
Because of the burden it put on the states after start up. The "jobs bill" passed so what were the results?

First you righties want the states to have more power than you don't. Why do you keep changing your minds on this?



Why, you will just ignore it as you continue to drink the Kool-aid

All I have seen from you is your opinion. Obviously you put a lock of stock into it's veracity, but I do not. Humor me... Provide some proof for your allegations.




Right, the Republicans hate the working class as they want to keep their jobs just like Democrats. The American people are smarter than you give them credit for in that they are rejecting unions. As has been reported less than 12% of the workforce is union so stop making it bigger than it is. It has also been reported that up to 40% of those union members are conservative. Many union employees are forced to join the unions. those are the people I feel sorry for and the people Republicans are really trying to help.

If only 12% of all workers are union, why are the republicans trying so damn hard to end unions?

Republicans are really trying to help.

yeah, help themselves and their corporate masters at the expense of the middle class. No thanks...

Project much?

Nope, more of an observer and identifier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom