Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

TheNextEra said:
It's hard to compete in general without innovation like GM has done. They lag in quality, safety, and innovation.

The corporate decisions in GM are what caused it to fail.

The worst corporate decision they ever made was the decision to stop specializing in manufacturing automobiles and go into the finance market (GMAC). This kind of scope creep will kill any company.

You can't ignore the other factors though. The cost of labor in America is very high and the UAW is out of control. Unions in and of themselves are not a bad thing. They actually have some advantages. The problem is when they grow large enough to extort an entire industry and make demands that are not only not in the best interest of the company, but contrary to their own self interest.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

BulletWounD said:
You can't ignore the other factors though. The cost of labor in America is very high and the UAW is out of control. Unions in and of themselves are not a bad thing. They actually have some advantages. The problem is when they grow large enough to extort an entire industry and make demands that are not only not in the best interest of the company, but contrary to their own self interest.

It's funny though, there are plenty of other jobs out there that have just as high pay and yet the companies do just fine.

Sorry, but poor management has been the ultimate downfall of the auto industries.

The only thing I agree with most conservatives on is that the bailouts should not have happened. Not for the banks and not for the auto industry.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

TheNextEra said:
It's funny though, there are plenty of other jobs out there that have just as high pay and yet the companies do just fine.

Give me an example of an industry with a monopolistic union as pervasive as the UAW that is doing "just fine."

Sorry, but poor management has been the ultimate downfall of the auto industries.

Sorry, you're ignoring the underlying factors upon which the demise of the American automobile industry has been predicted since I was in grade school at least.

The only thing I agree with most conservatives on is that the bailouts should not have happened. Not for the banks and not for the auto industry.

True, but we need union reform to preserve the American auto industry. See this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46108-competitive-unions.html

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

BulletWounD said:
Give me an example of an industry with a monopolistic union as pervasive as the UAW that is doing "just fine."

Sorry, you're ignoring the underlying factors upon which the demise of the American automobile industry has been predicted since I was in grade school at least.

True, but we need union reform to preserve the American auto industry. See this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46108-competitive-unions.html

Unions are a problem yes, but pointing to unions and saying they are the problem while giving management a pass is simply ridiculous.

The simple fact is if they made a good product the unions wouldn't matter very much.

Look at the main complaints with the American Auto Industry. For the most part not on par with safety, quality, or reliability.

If you make a bad product, people will not buy it. The American auto industry used to be a leader in innovation, now it simply copies what is out there and copies it poorly for the most part.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

TheNextEra said:
Unions are a problem yes, but pointing to unions and saying they are the problem while giving management a pass is simply ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with unions. There is a huge problem with our anti-competitive, state sanctioned unions in America. Check out the thread. Read the article.

The simple fact is if they made a good product the unions wouldn't matter very much.

Look at the main complaints with the American Auto Industry. For the most part not on par with safety, quality, or reliability.

If you make a bad product, people will not buy it. The American auto industry used to be a leader in innovation, now it simply copies what is out there and copies it poorly for the most part.

Companies must compete on cost, if US automakers are to start producing products in which customers are interested, they must be flexible and efficient. Our union system is bloated and inefficient by default. The UAW's state-sanctioned monopoly allows them to make unrealistic demands which divert funds from business operations. Usually the first thing a company will ditch to remain price competitive is R&D.

I'm not going to deny that the management at GM and Chrysler have made some poor business decisions. I'm just saying it's not the only problem.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

BulletWounD said:
Companies must compete on cost, if US automakers are to start producing products in which customers are interested, they must be flexible and efficient. Our union system is bloated and inefficient by default. The UAW's state-sanctioned monopoly allows them to make unrealistic demands which divert funds from business operations. Usually the first thing a company will ditch to remain price competitive is R&D.

I'm not going to deny that the management at GM and Chrysler have made some poor business decisions. I'm just saying it's not the only problem.

Again, if you make a quality part for say $15 and say it is American, while foreign countries are making a quality part for $12, you will always get those willing to buy American.

But if you make a ****ty part for $12 while the foreign companies are making a quality part for $12, you will get those wanting the quality component.

The focus of GM is making a ****ty part for the same price as a foreign quality part. It simply isn't going to pan out.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

TheNextEra said:
Again, if you make a quality part for say $15 and say it is American, while foreign countries are making a quality part for $12, you will always get those willing to buy American.

The "buy American" contingent is not large enough to keep the industry alive. Nor should it be. Getting the most bang for your buck is what capitalism is all about.

But if you make a ****ty part for $12 while the foreign companies are making a quality part for $12, you will get those wanting the quality component.

The disparity in quality between American and foreign automobiles has closed. Ford in particular makes some great cars. The problem is they're stuck in a time warp because they can't be as flexible and adaptive as companies that aren't weighted down with the waste of the UAW.

The focus of GM is making a ****ty part for the same price as a foreign quality part. It simply isn't going to pan out.

What'll drive the American automobile if it is to be preserved is fresh ideas and innovation. We've lost that edge.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

BulletWounD said:
The "buy American" contingent is not large enough to keep the industry alive. Nor should it be. Getting the most bang for your buck is what capitalism is all about.

It would be greater than what they got now is my point. I won't say if it will be enough, simply it would put them in a better position than now.

BulletWounD said:
The disparity in quality between American and foreign automobiles has closed. Ford in particular makes some great cars. The problem is they're stuck in a time warp because they can't be as flexible and adaptive as companies that aren't weighted down with the waste of the UAW.

IMO, at least Ford (At least for now) has refused the bailout money which makes them a company for Americans to support. The ball is in their court to innovate now and play on the fact they didn't accept a bailout. Personally, I think any of the companies that accepted the bailout money are done for.

BulletWounD said:
What'll drive the American automobile if it is to be preserved is fresh ideas and innovation. We've lost that edge.

I can't argue there and right now Ford is in the prime position for this to work for them, but I agree they need to spend money on innovation.

Ethereal · Apr 1, 2009

Why are we arguing about the Constitutionality of this? The bill is predicated upon an unconstitutional bailout. It's like telling someone not to take your plasma screen after they've raped your wife. The damage is already done. The Constitution means nothing to these people.

I mean, as long as they're going to engage in unconstitutional practices they might as well stick it to these panhandlers. You want government money? Well guess what, the government is going to stick its collective arm so far up your ass you'll wish you'd never asked. It's a good message to send to American businesses. Don't ask for a bailout unless you want the government breathing down your neck.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Ethereal said:
Why are we arguing about the Constitutionality of this? The bill is predicated upon an unconstitutional bailout. It's like telling someone not to take your plasma screen after they've raped your wife. The damage is already done. The Constitution means nothing to these people.

I mean, as long as they're going to engage in unconstitutional practices they might as well stick it to these panhandlers. You want government money? Well guess what, the government is going to stick its collective arm so far up your ass you'll wish you'd never asked. It's a good message to send to American businesses. Don't ask for a bailout unless you want the government breathing down your neck.

Well if it is unconstitutional, why don't you make up a lawsuit and prove it.

There are hundreds of thousands of CONSERVATIVE lawyers that can't bring a lawsuit of ANYTYPE of unconstitutionality. But I guess you as an internet poster know more than they do.

Carry on. :2wave::rofl

BTW just for record I don't agree with what Obama is doing on the bailouts, but it obviously isn't unconstitutional or it would have been brought up and knocked down.

So as an internet poster, sorry, you carry no credibility to your claims.

As much as I agreed the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, it was deemed constitutional. Saying it is unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.

Ethereal · Apr 1, 2009

Well if it is unconstitutional, why don't you make up a lawsuit and prove it.

Since when is winning a lawsuit a determination of proof?

There are hundreds of thousands of CONSERVATIVE lawyers that can't bring a lawsuit of ANYTYPE of unconstitutionality. But I guess you as an internet poster know more than they do.

These CONSERVATIVE lawyers certainly could initiate a lawsuit. The only problem is the Supreme Court's understanding of the US Constitution is almost as bad as yours. Wait, let me guess, is this the part where you make an appeal to authority by aggrandizing the sage wisdom of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever been wrong...

Carry on. :2wave::rofl

Okay?

BTW just for record I don't agree with what Obama is doing on the bailouts

Don't care.

but it obviously isn't unconstitutional or it would have been brought up and knocked down.

Oh, obviously, because we all know every unconstitutional practice or program was immediately struck down by the SCOTUS.

So as an internet poster, sorry, you carry no credibility to your claims.

Ad hominem.

As much as I agreed the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, it was deemed constitutional.

Of course, because the SCOTUS says so. They're infallible.

Saying it is unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.

Unless it's the SCOTUS.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

Ethereal said:
These CONSERVATIVE lawyers certainly could initiate a lawsuit. The only problem is the Supreme Court's understanding of the US Constitution is almost as bad as yours. Wait, let me guess, is this the part where you make an appeal to authority by aggrandizing the sage wisdom of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever been wrong...

The problem is the politicization of the Supreme Court which has happened since presidents started blatantly and actively breaking the rule of law established by the Constitution (*cough*cough*Roosevelt*cough*)

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Ethereal said:
Since when is winning a lawsuit a determination of proof?

According to those that said what Bush did was illegal in regards to the Iraq War, the opposition said take him to court and if they couldn't Bush was innocent. So what is this any different?

Ethereal said:
These CONSERVATIVE lawyers certainly could initiate a lawsuit. The only problem is the Supreme Court's understanding of the US Constitution is almost as bad as yours. Wait, let me guess, is this the part where you make an appeal to authority by aggrandizing the sage wisdom of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever been wrong...

So you are saying you have a better understanding of the Constitution than ALL of the Supreme court justices?

The rest of your post shows your lack of understanding about the legal system of America. I'll leave it at that. If there was something illegal, it would have been brought up at least.

Only you, a simple internet poster, is challenging the claims among all other conservative lawyers that would love to crucify Obama for anything.

So don't take this the wrong way, but you mean NOTHING your partisan claims. Thank you for playing.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
The problem is the politicization of the Supreme Court which has happened since presidents started blatantly and actively breaking the rule of law established by the Constitution (*cough*cough*Roosevelt*cough*)

Um Ex-President Bush had 2 appointments. So you can't excuse the Supreme court of being liberal, especially since one of the appointments was to replace a judge that voted liberal most of the time (Rehnquist)

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Um Ex-President Bush had 2 appointments. So you can't excuse the Supreme court of being liberal, especially since one of the appointments was to replace a judge that voted liberal most of the time (Rehnquist)

The Supreme Court needs to go back to it's intended purpose, to interpret the Constitution as strictly as possible. It's the conservative view which is closest to what the founders intended. American Liberals tend to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and can be interpreted any way they please, essentially making it meaningless. We might as well just tear it up right now and throw it in the trash.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
The Supreme Court needs to go back to it's intended purpose, to interpret the Constitution as strictly as possible. It's the conservative view which is closest to what the founders intended. American Liberals tend to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and can be interpreted any way they please, essentially making it meaningless. We might as well just tear it up right now and throw it in the trash.

Oh you mean interpret the Constitution to how conservatives view it, got it.

Of course you would be upset. I mean we should have slaves and child labor of course to conservatives. Because the consitution never mentioned those things.

As a living document the Constitution would free slaves and make labor laws such as children shouldn't be labor, but we know how you would hate a living document to prevent those things.

You would just like the constitution to remain as is without any amendments and make those things I said to be against possible.

Sorry we couldn't make the consitution static and not change slavery, child laber, etc. so sorry.

A lliving document meant changes could be made but you would rather the consiutution stay as is and cannot be changed with any amendments.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Oh you mean interpret the Constitution to how conservatives view it, got it.

Of course you would be upset. I mean we should have slaves and child labor of course to conservatives.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th and 14th amendment. Just because the federal government can't prevent child labor doesn't mean the states can't. I assure you, they all would. If they didn't, we could pass the child labor amendment with ease. That's what the founders intended - not this "living document" bullcrap.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
Slavery was abolished by the 13th and 14th amendment. Just because the federal government can't prevent child labor doesn't mean the states can't. I assure you, they all would. If they didn't, they could pass the child labor amendment with ease. That's what the founders intended - not this "living document" bullcrap.

It was changed because the constitution was a living document. You would want NOTHING changed.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
It was changed because the constitution was a living document. You would want NOTHING changed.

No, I would want all changes to undergo the Constitutional Amendment Process - just like the 13th and 14th. This is what the founders intended. Instead politicians have been violating their Oath of Office and blatantly subverting the Constitution. This is treason.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
No, I would want all changes to undergo the Constitutional Amendment Process - just like the 13th and 14th. This is what the founders intended. Instead politicians have been violating their Oath of Office and blatantly subverting the Constitution. This is treason.

Again, show, prove, and prosecute, things that are being done as unconstitutional.

As much as I didn't approve of what Bush did, none of what he did was proven unconstitutional, even though I thought it was.

So clearly what I though what unconstitutional diodn't matter.

Why don't you try the same thing. Prove it.

I was told by conservatives and republicans that if I couldn't proive what Bush did was unconstitutional, then it isn't. So I lay the same claim on you, prove it isn't legally and then prosecute.

If you can't then I say upon you the same thing EVERY conservative/Republican said to me and that is "If you can't then it must be legal".

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Again, show, prove, and prosecute, things that are being done as unconstitutional.

The enumerated powers defined by the Constitution are pretty clear to anybody that can read. It speaks for itself. Do you want me to "prove" that 2+2=4 as well? If the Supreme Court declares that 2+2=5, does that make it true?

jamesrage · Apr 1, 2009

celticlord said:
Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

Not going to drag in the S-word on this, because the hyperpartisans on the left will disavow it despite all evidence.

My question is simply this: was any of this the "change" folks voted for?

I wonder if those socialist in office would make they same thing apply to the paychecks of Hollywood actors,surely a million or two for several months worth of work (if you can call pretending to be something you are not and reading off what someone else says actually work)is too much money.

(sarcasm)

winston53660 · Apr 1, 2009

jamesrage said:
I wonder if those socialist in office would make they same thing apply to the paychecks of Hollywood actors,surely a million or two for several months worth of work (if you can call pretending to be something you are not and reading off what someone else says actually work)is too much money.

(sarcasm)

Are they asking for government loans?

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
The enumerated powers defined by the Constitution are pretty clear to anybody that can read. It speaks for itself. Do you want me to "prove" that 2+2=4 as well? If the Supreme Court declares that 2+2=5, does that make it true?

Well then you shouldn 't have any problems prosecuting Obama on this, so why don't you personally?

I mean like I said time and time again the patriot act was unconstiutional, but I couldn't find any lawyer to take the case. So the conservatives said it was legal since I couldn't.

so I lay the same claim to you prosecute or STFU. Put up or shut up. You put up a good word game, but if it is unconsutional you shouldn't have a hard time finding a conservative lawyer that REALLY hates Obama (There are plenty just to let you know) to put the legal paperwork in to prove your claim.

Oh wait, let me guess, no conservative high priced lawyer that would on a pro-bono status to nail that anti-christ Obama (That REALLY REALLY REALLY hates Obama) will take the case. What does that tell you about you pathetic internet claims?

You have NOTHING.

Ethereal · Apr 1, 2009

According to those that said what Bush did was illegal in regards to the Iraq War, the opposition said take him to court and if they couldn't Bush was innocent. So what is this any different?

There is no difference. They are employing the same specious reasoning as you. Also, you did not answer my question.

So you are saying you have a better understanding of the Constitution than ALL of the Supreme court justices?

No. Are you saying the Supreme Court Justices are infallible?

The rest of your post shows your lack of understanding about the legal system of America. I'll leave it at that.

Translation: I cannot refute your arguments so I'll just make unsubstantiated claims and pass them off as relevant criticisms.

If there was something illegal, it would have been brought up at least.

It is being brought up. I'm bringing it up right now, as have many others.

Only you, a simple internet poster, is challenging the claims among all other conservative lawyers that would love to crucify Obama for anything.

Ad hominem.

So don't take this the wrong way, but you mean NOTHING your partisan claims.

I'm not a partisan. You're just extremely confused.

Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

Ethereal

TheNextEra

Ethereal

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

jamesrage

winston53660

TheNextEra

Ethereal