• 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!

Tenn. politicians threaten to kill VW incentives if UAW wins election

Nope

Using the public's money for political purposes is an abuse of power.

If putting conditions on use of the publics money, particularly money represented by tax breaks as opposed to cash, was an abuse of power, than anything conditional would fall under that category.

Let's say that there was no condition regarding the Unions involved. Let's say that instead the Republicans in office boasted that they had brought jobs to the state thus showing their "generosity" wouldn't that be just as political?

Aren't most new laws political in nature? Should the Administration, now fighting voter ID laws, be viewed as abuse of political power? Doesn't almost everything contain political results?

I understand your argument but isn't this the way politics work when you have the 2 opposing party system? Doesn't the party in power take actions to keep their power and the party out of favor initiate legislation to increase their position?

Certainly the Democrats are passing laws that increase their voter base. Why would that be OK in view of the political power issue?

I hope that is a reasonable question. Politicians are not self-sacrificing by nature, they are self-serving. So, isn't that the way it goes?
 
IOW, the Tenn Republicans are saying that VW is not competent to decide for itself whether or not it goes union.

No, they are saying they don't want to help fund a VW plant if it is unionized. Tennessee has as much right to decide for itself where its tax dollars as VW has the right to choose where they put their factory. VW is still free to choose Tennessee as the home of its new factory, it's just not likely since VW knows that the plant is not financially viable without Tennessee money and the UAW albatross draped over its shoulders.

And the idea that the govt should stay out of private businesses goes under the bus. The republicans have no principles besides short-term self-interest

Well, no, it's completely worth discussing whether a state should be paying businesses to move to the state that couldn't or wouldn't move their otherwise. But the recipe for Detroit levels of destruction rely on the kind of political cronyism you get when you have the powerful labor unions and State managed corporate welfare feeding off one another. Corporations at least have to hedge their bets between both parties while the Unions are simply a kickback machine to the Democratic Party.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that this isn't a move at all. It is a new plant mean to build a new SUV that will be debuting in 2016. They currently are choosing between Tennessee and Mexico and from what I read into the story, Tennessee is only in the running because of state funding.

My comment on moving is more of a forecast even if Tennessee lands the deal. In the long run the Republicans probably see a unionized plant being shut down and relocated to Mexico eventually, having essentially wasted the state funding.

Understood. Where does VW stand on this deal? Are they siding with the Republicans and saying that if they are unionized they don't want to move to TN? Also, even if the UAW backs off, what would keep them from unionizing 10 minutes after the first SUV rolls off the line?
 
If putting conditions on use of the publics money, particularly money represented by tax breaks as opposed to cash, was an abuse of power, than anything conditional would fall under that category.

The govt can put conditions on the use of public money, but not conditions that are political.


Let's say that there was no condition regarding the Unions involved. Let's say that instead the Republicans in office boasted that they had brought jobs to the state thus showing their "generosity" wouldn't that be just as political?

The use of that money would be to bring jobs to the state. Their boasting about it is not a use of public money

Aren't most new laws political in nature? Should the Administration, now fighting voter ID laws, be viewed as abuse of political power? Doesn't almost everything contain political results?

That is not a use of public money to promote a political party

I understand your argument but isn't this the way politics work when you have the 2 opposing party system? Doesn't the party in power take actions to keep their power and the party out of favor initiate legislation to increase their position?

Certainly the Democrats are passing laws that increase their voter base. Why would that be OK in view of the political power issue?

I hope that is a reasonable question. Politicians are not self-sacrificing by nature, they are self-serving. So, isn't that the way it goes?

Why yes, politicians are political. It would be hard to find any decision a politician makes that isn't meant to make them look good.

However, there is a difference between trying to look good by making good policy and using public money to achieve politically partisan goals when there is no other reason. It is particularly corrupt when it comes from a party that claims the govt should not interfere with the operation of free enterprises, and then turns around and interferes with a free enterprises affairs because of political favoritism

We can use our brains and see the obvious motivation for this policy. It is clear that it is not being done because of how it affects the residents of the state. It is motivated purely by a desire to keep money out of the hands of democrats. IOW, it's a purely partisan maneuver and an abuse of power.
 
So right-to-work is okay but Union isn't, in spite of the worker preferences.
The GOP double standard in a state that gives out taxpayer money to woo a foreign company to our shores .
 
No, they are saying they don't want to help fund a VW plant if it is unionized.

IOW, they are interfering with the decisions of a free enterprise with the hopes of influencing that decision despite their BS claims that the govt should not interfere with those decisions

The corrupt GOP throws another of it's bogus "principles" under the bus
 
Well then shoot the messenger while the message goes to Mexico.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
An open state for right-to-work but a closed state for Unions.
Not too statist and totalitarian .
Really ? If they are UAW don't they just hand their ballots over to the DNC (figuratively) on Election Day? What percent of the UAWs money in politics is non partisan? If you were a Republican in Tenn would you want to subsidize Democratic Party donations by the UAW? Really?
 
Understood. Where does VW stand on this deal? Are they siding with the Republicans and saying that if they are unionized they don't want to move to TN? Also, even if the UAW backs off, what would keep them from unionizing 10 minutes after the first SUV rolls off the line?

I don't really know. I think it is a wash for them. It really comes down to the bottom line. I don't think they care if the union moves in to the Tennessee plant so long as the state is covering the increased costs.
 
IOW, they are interfering with the decisions of a free enterprise with the hopes of influencing that decision despite their BS claims that the govt should not interfere with those decisions

Well no, they "interfered with the decisions of a free enterprise" when they offered money to VW in order to make it cheaper than Mexico. By withdrawing that money they are returning the VW decision back to purely market driven realities.
 
Well no, they "interfered with the decisions of a free enterprise" when they offered money to VW in order to make it cheaper than Mexico.

Which is just another example of Republicans throwing their bogus "principles" under the bus.

By withdrawing that money they are returning the VW decision back to purely market driven realities.

Everyone else understands the partisan reasons for this decision. You have chosen to pretend naivete
 
The govt can put conditions on the use of public money, but not conditions that are political.

The use of that money would be to bring jobs to the state. Their boasting about it is not a use of public money

That is not a use of public money to promote a political party

Why yes, politicians are political. It would be hard to find any decision a politician makes that isn't meant to make them look good.

However, there is a difference between trying to look good by making good policy and using public money to achieve politically partisan goals when there is no other reason. It is particularly corrupt when it comes from a party that claims the govt should not interfere with the operation of free enterprises, and then turns around and interferes with a free enterprises affairs because of political favoritism

We can use our brains and see the obvious motivation for this policy. It is clear that it is not being done because of how it affects the residents of the state. It is motivated purely by a desire to keep money out of the hands of democrats. IOW, it's a purely partisan maneuver and an abuse of power.

Then I could easily argue that immigration encouragement and negation of ID laws are meant politically to benefit Democrats, not Americans. That's very partisan. So why is that OK? By your standards, you should feel the same way.

After all, the Republicans position in TN is simply they don't want to give breaks to a unionized corporation. They aren't disallowing the corporation from moving there, they just don't want to give them corporate welfare if they are unionized. So, in a way, they are saving the public money. Why are they obligated to give any company a tax break in the first place?
 
Which is just another example of Republicans throwing their bogus "principles" under the bus.

Everyone else understands the partisan reasons for this decision. You have chosen to pretend naivete

Actually, everybody does seem to understand the partisan aspect. Look at the responses I got to my original question. Isn't this (partisanship) normal?
 
Which is just another example of Republicans throwing their bogus "principles" under the bus.

Everyone else understands the partisan reasons for this decision. You have chosen to pretend naivete


Yeah, if only the UAW donated more to Republicans this deal might be going through. :roll:

What you want the Republicans in Tennessee to do is akin to the Wisconsin State Workers Union donating money to the Scott Walker campaign fund. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Then I could easily argue that immigration encouragement and negation of ID laws are meant politically to benefit Democrats, not Americans. That's very partisan. So why is that OK? By your standards, you should feel the same way.

Except that there are plenty of non-partisan reasons for supporting those policies. In this case, it is clear why the republicans are making the support contingent on non-unionization.

After all, the Republicans position in TN is simply they don't want to give breaks to a unionized corporation. They aren't disallowing the corporation from moving there, they just don't want to give them corporate welfare if they are unionized. So, in a way, they are saving the public money. Why are they obligated to give any company a tax break in the first place?

The issue isn't whether or not they think it's a bad idea to give public money to a corp to convince it to move there. They have already made it clear that are willing to do that.

The question is why would they make the money contingent on VW not going union? And the answer is clear - it's because of partisan concerns and not how it will affect their constituents.

You could argue this issue on philosophical grounds for eternity. I prefer to deal with the reality, which is clear to everyone (including you) but the most partisan posters who will pretend that they believe it's the govt's job to protect VW from it's own bad decisions.
 
Actually, everybody does seem to understand the partisan aspect. Look at the responses I got to my original question. Isn't this (partisanship) normal?

Partisanship is not unusual in politics. This level of partisanship, and the use of public money to pursue it, is not. Reasonable people can use their heads and distinguish between varying degrees of partisanship and come to conclusions based on the specific facts surrounding specific acts.
 
Except that there are plenty of non-partisan reasons for supporting those policies. In this case, it is clear why the republicans are making the support contingent on non-unionization.



The issue isn't whether or not they think it's a bad idea to give public money to a corp to convince it to move there. They have already made it clear that are willing to do that.

The question is why would they make the money contingent on VW not going union? And the answer is clear - it's because of partisan concerns and not how it will affect their constituents.

You could argue this issue on philosophical grounds for eternity. I prefer to deal with the reality, which is clear to everyone (including you) but the most partisan posters who will pretend that they believe it's the govt's job to protect VW from it's own bad decisions.

Yes, it is clear to me. There is no philosophical issue. All I'm saying is that this is business as usual.
 
Yeah, if only the UAW donated more to Republicans this deal might be going through. :roll:

A minute ago you were pretending that their policy was meant to be in the public's best interest.

Now you're arguing that the GOP needs bribes.

I knew your naivete was as phony as the GOP's "principles"
 
Yes, it is clear to me. There is no philosophical issue. All I'm saying is that this is business as usual.

But it's not.

It's like saying all the people who didn't care that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife would not care if he had cheated with a 10 year old boy. After all, it's his private life, right?

You're not stupid. You are more than able to look at a situation and see if it goes clearly over the line, even if the line is not clearly demarcated
 
Which is just another example of Republicans throwing their bogus "principles" under the bus.



Everyone else understands the partisan reasons for this decision. You have chosen to pretend naivete


I don't know about everyone, but I can certainly see the partisanship oozing from your interpretation.

The fact is the CEO of VW has laid out a plan to make VW the largest car manufacturer in the World by 2018. To achieve this, they are planning on spending $80 billion to bring about new vehicles, new technologies, and new production plants.

Getting hammered by a Unionization issue would create a situation where they would just as easily increase production capacities in facilities outside of Tenn. As has been pointed out, why would increased incentives be offered if in the long term production is shifted elsewhere?

How Volkswagen Will Rule The World - Forbes
 
A minute ago you were pretending that their policy was meant to be in the public's best interest.

It is in the public's best interest. It also happens to be in the best interest of their elections given the near 100% Democrat support that unions shovel into local and state elections.

Now you're arguing that the GOP needs bribes.

Are you saying that the money Democrats take from the UAW is bribe money?

I knew your naivete was as phony as the GOP's "principles"

Huh?
 
It is in the public's best interest. It also happens to be in the best interest of their elections given the near 100% Democrat support that unions shovel into local and state elections.

IOW, the GOP is throwing it's principle of not interfering with a free enterprise because it thinks the Nanny State Govt knows what's best for VW.
 
Partisanship is not unusual in politics. This level of partisanship, and the use of public money to pursue it, is not. Reasonable people can use their heads and distinguish between varying degrees of partisanship and come to conclusions based on the specific facts surrounding specific acts.

But it's not.

It's like saying all the people who didn't care that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife would not care if he had cheated with a 10 year old boy. After all, it's his private life, right?

You're not stupid. You are more than able to look at a situation and see if it goes clearly over the line, even if the line is not clearly demarcated

No, I don't think I'm stupid but I don't know everything either. Because I'm not partisan, I sometimes have to ask questions to settle things in my mind.

To you, this is very clear. To me, there are 2 sides to the argument.

Sure, it should be about the best result for the citizens. But our country isn't structured that way. So, examining reality is required. Maybe you think your Clinton example can be applied here but there (in my view) some other subtleties. That's why we are here - to discuss and examine. Otherwise, we lose the debate element that is the basis for this board.

As I've said before, it's too bad we are not a Meritocracy. Then we would have no issues like this. But we aren't, so it gets complicated.
 
IOW, the GOP is throwing it's principle of not interfering with a free enterprise because it thinks the Nanny State Govt knows what's best for VW.

Well first, lower operational costs ARE what's best for VW. That is universally true of all businesses. Tennessee's plan was to make VW's operational costs in Tennessee lower than they would be in Mexico. With the introduction of the UAW into the mix that either increases what Tennessee would need to shell out OR it makes Tennessee less attractive to VW as a home for the new factory.

Personally I think they are far better off going for the low tax route that promotes broad based growth and is ultimately agnostic to the kinds of business their environment attracts rather than the Democrat-style fishing expeditions. So insofar as the original plan was targeted specifically at VW I would agree that it was disturbingly Democrat-like.

Good thing the UAW stepped in and broke it up! Shew!
 
VW has German style corporate management, in which they actually incorporate worker input in the decision process (and I mean for real, not just the usual corporate BS), and have no problem with unions. The Tennessee government is interfering with a situation where both unions and management are on the same page. Talk about the nanny state.

I don't like corporations getting special tax privileges in general for exactly this reason. All auto companies in Tennessee should be using the same tax forms. Letting the government arbitrarily select "winners" to be subsidized is incredibly prone to abuse. It also give the government unacceptable influence where they can tell businesses what to do in situations where they have no legal right.
 
Back
Top Bottom