Jobs are slowly coming back to America. Businesses that went to China are slowly discovering that the Chinese really don't want to work for free either.
I work in a right to work state. I am college educated and not "Lazy" by ANY MEANS.... and it is awful. Most of the companies treat their workers like SHIT.. No Benefits... LOW WAGES... NO BENEFITS... and the managers openly walk around and remind employees that we work in a "Right to Work" state and we have NO RIGHTS... That is not fair.. How does that hurt people? You have more poverty, more stress, more unemployment.. and people giving up. Why SLAVE for someone?
@patsaxon Wow, what a bunch of lies. American productivity has steadily improved over the last several decades. Those gains have not been shared with the workers who actually made those gains.
Workers in China are forbidden to form unions precisely so that wages can be kept at substinence levels. Is that what you want for America?
Wrong and totally wrong! The unions are the reason for American manufactures out sourcing to China! Union are greedy and ask way too much money for producing less products. Workers in China can compete against any Union worker and will take their jobs away!
I think Union serfs who produce all the grain need to stop begging the baron for more oats.
If the Unions actually pooled resources and opened their own cooperative companies and formed cooperative coalitions whereby they supported one another's business and sold their goods in cooperative marketplaces which they marketed around their local communities, with today's technology they could successfully compete with big businesses and at the very least find niche markets.
@fargonbastedge In India we used to say India first, Indians first. I laugh at all you stupid Americans who fight against your own workers for multinational corporations. You people have strong emotional reactions to words you don't even know the meanings of, you hold strong positions on things you know nothing about, and you treat politics like a holy war and a sporting event. America isn't even owned by Americans it's owned by multinational corporations, and you think you own the world.
Public Sector Unions should be outlawed. They are soaking us here in NJ. It is time for the tax payers to rise up and shake off the oppression of the public sector unions. They are not necessary in 2011. Besides, have you EVER gotten anything close to "good service" from a member of a public sector union? DMV, your city hall, local tax collector, anybody? Of course not, because they feel untouchable because of their union backing them. The public suffers greatly because of these lazy leeches.
@mhlconnects Oh really? I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Especially considering all our major competitors have better paid public sectors and a higher degree of unionization than we do, including the Japanese, where Union leaders sit on the board of directors of auto companies and in Germany as well. Besides in the GM restructuring unions took a big hit, shareholders were wiped out and bondholders, including union health and pension plans became the new shareholders.
In March 2009, Katz was expelled from the CWA after an internal tribunal unanimously found her guilty of financial mismanagement. She was ordered by the tribunal to reimburse more than $138,000 to the union for funds improperly used for personal and political expenses. Katz has filed a lawsuit to regain her status with the union.
Okay. Unions do raise workers wages and benefits, but the idea that it helps the economy is bullshit. How does it benefit the economy as a whole? More people get laid off because the employer fires or not hires people due to the increasing cost of the unions demands. Sure it helps some people, but screws others over. Or the cost gets shifted to the consumer which pisses everyone else off.
@jpzxcvbnm Wrong, such actions shift the aggregate demand curve outward and if the price was going to rise, companies would have found an excuse anyway as that way they can get more profit and can always attribute the rise to some other factor, besides a contented workforce is an efficient workforce. Also why is it that everyone complains about unions when union members almost never draw salaries higher than $100,000? Or is it that you have something against the middle class?
@Meade556 First of all, $100,000 is a lot of money and someone who gets that kind of money should earn it and not because they are in a union. For example, the teacher's in a union should never make that kind of money unless they are the rare teacher who is excellent at teaching. In Wisconsin, the average teacher makes $90,000 a year! That's more than most middle class makes. Unions also make rules that make force others to follow. Many are violent and want control. Youtube daycare union.
@jpzxcvbnm You are assuming Union members all get salaries like that, they don't most are more like $40,000-$50,000 that salary is only for very highly specialized people like scientists working for state and local governments, so their skills should draw a good salary. Teachers hold our children's futures in our hands and I don't know where you got that figure, last I checked it was $25,000 lower, even before Walker in Wisconsin. Which unions are violent?
@Meade556 It's about $51,000 base salary + $38,000 in benefits. Plus they only work 9 months. You can google the numbers. It's about $89000. Teacher's union resist charter schools and private school vouchers. More money is spent, but test scores remain flat. SEIU attacks a black man with US flag. Long Shoreman's union in Seattle. Attacks on the tea party. You can youtube many attacks. Unions overseas are worse. Look at Greece.
@jpzxcvbnm In my experience the benefits of union members are often exaggerated, their benefits always include the amount they contribute from their salary to both pension and healthcare. Plus, as with the computations for Federal workers eventual SocSec payments are included even though all pay full FICA. Have you ever seen charter schools and vouchers? I have, in Florida, its a disaster, believe me. SEIU has changed and that was near 40 years ago.
@Meade556 Actually SEIU is still pretty aggressive today. Also, unions force people to join unions. In states that are not "right to work" states, they have to join a union and pay union fees. Why can't it be an option? No one is saying that all charter/private schools beat every public school. There are some good public schools I've seen. But as for me, I was stuck in a school with inferior quality. I just wanted the CHANCE to try a different school.
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah I know about what they did in Seattle, but the Port Authorities are in breach of contract. Not all union rules are lovable, but I understand why they do it. Not so that they can rake in ever greater fees, but because the people who don't join unions enjoy union protections if enough people do sign on, so such rules exist so that all workers have a stake in the decisions of a union, participate and do not just free load.
@jpzxcvbnm Like I said I was educated in a Christian school and my parents still paid taxes for State schools and did not complain about it because they realized that schools are needed for everyone and that if they wanted to send me to a christian school that was their choice, to pay for the upkeep of civilization that was their duty as American citizens. In the realm of public services, contracting should send shivers up everyones' spines. What are they cutting back on?
@Meade556 That's great what your parents did. But my parents paid taxes but couldn't afford private schools. Why are my parents forced to pay taxes for education and have to pay out of their own pocket for a private school. Then maybe they should pay less taxes if they send me to a private school. The education department is corrupt. In CA where I'm from, Gov Brown is mandating history contributions of homosexuals as a curriculum. Some parents don't like that, but children have to learn about it
@jpzxcvbnm What you say sounds great, to some extent, at first until you consider that with less competition from private schools and with so much money because people have lower taxes or are not paying education taxes, they raise the price beyond what public school would have cost, negating any cost control and ultimately pushing down wages to increase profits. I disagree with Gov. Brown, but I don't see how being taught that, in the long run is so terrible. We learn about MLK, why not H. Milk?
@Meade556 First of all, the public sector has jacked up the price over the years. It's a monopoly. More spending per student, but flat test scores. Charter schools spend less than public. And for private schools, the parents can pay the difference of the cost and the subsidy. Why teach about someone's sexual orientation and not accomplishment? Plus it's not the schools job to teach morality. And if parents don't want their kids to learn it, they don't have a choice to leave unless they're rich.
@jpzxcvbnm Oh and try the LA Times budget game, you can see that California can solve its problems by raising taxes and making some modest cuts, ultimately however tax increases hurt less than spending cuts because with spending cuts a service ceases and a state loses the revenue from the activities of that program offsetting much of the theoretical savings. Tax increases, while unpleasant mean continuation of services and no losses from the programs.
@Meade556 CA is over half a trillion in debt. If you raise taxes on the wealthy %100 across the country without any deep spending cuts, the government can only sustain itself for 4 to 6 months at best. Spending is the big problem. You can balance the budget by significantly raising taxes and modest cuts. But you are not tackling the debt issue. Plus if you raise taxes on the wealthy or even small business, you risk them leaving the state and taking away jobs. Government wastes too much money.
@jpzxcvbnm Besides that mob included SEIU members but it was NOT an SEIU demonstration. It was a bunch of Irish hoods. I have, with my own two eyes, seen teabaggers attack union members who were counter demonstrating or threaten them with guns while union members were unarmed as for unions in Greece they are being violent because of the severity of the cuts and they feel that it is the financial elites, writing bad products, issuing junk government and corporate bonds that is the cause
@jpzxcvbnm The Long Shoreman's Union of Seattle is right to say that the Port Authorities are in breach of contract. People also like to cite Boeing, the Unions are not opposed to a plant opening outside Washington, they would be fine if it opened in NY or Mass. But they know that faith based education systems are not as good as more secular ones (and I was educated in a christian school) and know that if there are any faults with planes down the line, they will be blamed not SC
@Meade556 Lol. Well I don't think we will agree on this issue. But anyways, to respond. First, I feel that there are bad apples in all groups. But many times the unions don't police themselves up. Look at the teacher's union. There are really bad almost criminal teachers who don't get fired or may end up fired but with all these benefits. I mean there are many examples and you can youtube or google them. Look at Michelle Rhee and what she tried to do. But the teacher's union bullied her.
@jpzxcvbnm Actually, in my experience with teachers' unions they work hard to police themselves and warn bad members, if they do not improve they will receive less protection and will face career termination, which is where you get a bunch of these "I used to be union and they were so mean to me" people. As for Michelle Rhee, I live in DC and the unions bullied her not because she wanted to get rid of incompetents, which they were happy to help with, but because she wanted an excuse to...
@Meade556 Michelle Rhee was trying to keep teachers accountable for the low performance of the students. Teachers were supposedly getting high ratings while many students fail in school. I do agree that administrative costs should be cut. You should watch the movie the cartel.
@jpzxcvbnm downsize people and increase class sizes, exclaiming, hey we cut costs, whereas the unions wanted any savings in litigation costs to be used to decrease class size. She disagreed, they in turn said they would help with cracking down on incompetents but would not cut staff and increase class sizes, she decided to take them on anyway, even after administrative staff earning over $65,000 agreed to a three year wage freeze. She was the bully
@jpzxcvbnm Actually, for the Federal government taxing the wealthy 100% would leave us with a $94 billion surplus this year. Much of the waste at the Federal, State, and Local level is with contractors, more work completed by government workers means the same level of service at less the cost. In any case unemployment tends to be lower in states with higher taxes and all other developed countries have much higher taxes than we do.
@Meade556 I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but we will only have a temporary surplus for a short time because we spend more money than receive any revenue. Remember the debt crisis? If you tax the wealthy, look what happens, they sent jobs overseas or transfer the burden to the taxpayers through increased prices. Most waste comes from all departments. And most spending goes to entitlements like pension funds, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.
@jpzxcvbnm That is not true, play the simulation and considering who owns it the LA Times is hardly a liberal rag. What debt crisis? If your logic was true, Japan, France and Germany would have much higher unemployment, when their unemployment rate is lower than ours. Clinton raised taxes and not only were their surpluses but a booming economy as the increased corporate tax with fewer loopholes incentivized companies to invest more, so they could write it off.
@Meade556 Okay. The debt ceiling crisis was a big event that occurred a few months ago. You should look it up. Our AAA credit rating dropped. In terms of unemployment, taxes are not the sole reason for employment/unemployment. It's excessive spending and regulations. France and Germany get a lot of money from being pro-energy. What surplus? We were still in debt. Sure he balanced the budget, but that's due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress.
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah I know about the debt ceiling crisis that is different than a debt crisis and when our credit rating dropped so did our borrowing costs. No one ever explains how Companies spending money to comply with regulation costs us jobs nor do they explain how spending hurts. France and Germany are pro-green energy. We had a budget surplus in the 90s, and what Gingrich wanted to do was cut taxes and cut spending, but Clinton said no tax cuts, unless they're for poor people
@Meade556 Actually the borrowing costs increased. France uses mostly nuclear energy and Germany doesn't use mostly green energy. There are many examples of how regulation kills business. You can just look it up. Forced minimum wage laws, all the red tape to start a business, unemployment benefit packages, etc. One of the biggest is Obamacare. You can see why most people are against it.
@jpzxcvbnm No they did not, they went down from about 3% to 1.65% and now have settled around 2.2% France and Germany having been there and making HUGE investments in green energy and energy efficiency. Alan Kreuger did a study in the 90s which shows that employment increases when the minimum wage is increased and as I said all our major competitors have more red tape.
@Meade556 Cont'd.. Newt Gingrich passed welfare reform and worked with the president to create a balanced budget. And the economy boomed during Y2K when people spent tons of money. Plus technology booms greatly helped the economy. So the only thing I give credit for Clinton is that he worked with the Republican congress to help the economy.
@jpzxcvbnm Besides Welfare Reform was something Clinton happily pursued, and most of the savings were achieved through tax increases and cuts in military spending. People were spending lots of money with higher taxes, and as I explained the higher taxes made corporations invest as they knew they could only make greater profits of they invested their money, which set off an investment boom. It boomed inspite of the Republicans
@Meade556 Actually Clinton rejected welfare reform twice before it passed a third time. But I give him credit for it though. A majority of the spending occured near the years 2000. Some people were spending because of the Y2k issue. Plus there was a lot of technology booms that caused more people to invest. But Clinton nor the Republicans should take credit for that. It was just the free market and some very fortunate events. Look at what happened with Jimmy Carter.
@jpzxcvbnm When he did that it is because the first two would have basically abolished it, the third try was him forcing the Republicans to compromise. The technology boom was due in a large part to the incentives the higher taxes created. When companies invest in research, they get to write it off their taxable income, knowing they would not be able to just dole out big amounts in bonuses and dividends by simply having lower taxes in order to get those higher bonuses they needed to invest.
@jpzxcvbnm Through tax increases alone, Clinton cut the deficit by more than a half, much of the other reductions in the deficit and the surpluses, which were starting to pay down the debt, came from the economic incentives those higher taxes created along with the cuts in Military spending and later the Welfare Reform Act, but the surpluses would have been impossible without tax increases.
@Meade556 He never paid down the debt. It's the same with almost every president since FDR. But yes the tax increases did help cut the deficit because it creates temporary revenue. But when demand/spending/consuming slows down, that's when the big taxes slow the economy. Keynesian economics does not work, just like stimulus spending. You can create a "surplus" by cutting spending. Look what happened with Jimmy Carter.
@jpzxcvbnm Its not so much about paying down the debt as it is reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP. Tax increases even if a recovery do not slow growth, look at the New Deal, lots of stimulus, lots of tax increases, lots of growth. The economy only contracted in 1937 when the stimulus was cut back on, when it was resumed things picked up again. In 1938, at rock bottom the GDP was $92 billion in 1933 it was $68 billion
@Meade556 The New Deal can be debated. But tax increases does slow growth if spending is stifled and unemployment is high. Why do you think the president keeps passing stimulus bills? Plus Jimmy Carter raised taxes and the economy sucked. Herbert Hoover (a Republican), passed stimulus and it also failed. Their has to be a balance.
@jpzxcvbnm Carter suffered from high gas prices and inflation, but during his administration 8,000,000 jobs were created and the economy still grew. Hoover passed no stimulus and Morgenthau's prophecies of doom were unfounded, the National Debt as a share of GDP increased very little during the New Deal because of the increases in GDP, all Hoover did was set up RFC, which slowed the rate of bank destruction, for that he deserves credit but it was not enough
@jpzxcvbnm Increased prices are a myth again look at the 90s and considering the huge profit margins of these companies, they hardly have any good reason to raise prices, in fact speculation is driving up the price of oil and 1/3 paid no net taxes, they are fine. As for pension funds, Wall Street is stealing from those. If State and Local governments shifted their pensions from pension management into large index funds, where admin costs are far lower they would save $50 billion a yar
@Meade556 Some companies do avoid taxes and they shouldn't. But in terms of speculation, it is true that price of oil is going up based on our consumption rate. If we drilled in Alaska and other places, we would increase our supply of oil. First of all with pensions, people should not get the pensions unless they pay %100 into it themselves, unless it's a private sector job. And if they want to move their pensions around, then I'm all for it.
@jpzxcvbnm The point is to be energy self sufficient, and that means green, we can drill all we want, we will still be dependent on foreign oil. Public sector employees have 401k pensions like private sector employees and why shouldn't govt as an employer, contribute to 401k accounts, just like the private sector. I said the pensions would be less costly if govts moved their funds to large index funds
@Meade556 Solyndra was a huge scam. You can't compare green energy with fossil fuels. We won't have to be dependent of foreign fuel. We have tons of oil, it's just that they are not in liquid state. It does take more energy to extract it, but it's abundant. We have natural gas and nuclear energy. Government shouldn't contribute to 401k because the taxpayers are forced to pay for it. The burden falls on the CEO for a private company as opposed to the general population.
@jpzxcvbnm 1. Solyndra was just $525 million not the $295 billion of DoD. The program the Solydra loans were a part of saved 33,000 jobs at Ford, GM, and Chrysler and created 8,000 green tech jobs. Only half the money has been spent, its target is to create or save 66,000 jobs, despite the setback it is ahead of schedule. As for taxpayers, they are just the customers of govt and pensions in the private sector are shifted on to the customer, don't be ridiculous
@Meade556 Solyndra ended up bankrupt. There were warning signs, but the president still wasted taxpayer money on it. Over 1000 workers were laid off. There is room for cuts for DOD, but other programs will have to be cut also. And there is no statistic as to measuring a saved job. As for private companies, we can choose to purchase their goods. As for the government, we have to pay into it. Look at all the pensions that cities owe. Some are already collapsing.
@jpzxcvbnm I am not saying Solyndra does not stink but $525 million vs 295 billion is whopping and when you mention it to Republicans they shut their eyes and say "No it does not exist, no, no, no." Such behavior is adorable in a child, less so in people who are supposed to lead. Where I live, by raising taxes, Govts have staved off budget deficits and painful cuts in services and the unemployment rate is lower than in NV, LA, AL, MS or TX.
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah but you need top talent in all levels of Government to minimize inefficiency and waste, beating down on wages and pensions makes government more inefficient. Jon Huntsman understands this point. I disagree with him but with him, unlike most Republicans, the real argument is over size not quality of government, whereas most Rs want an inferior product because they do not think govt should work
@Meade556 No one wants an inferior product. The people want small government and efficient government. Not wages, but pensions cost a lot of money. It's about cost management. If you raise taxes, that money isn't even managed well. So why would people want to pay taxes into a system that wastes it. No one is against paying taxes, it has to be reasonable and be well managed.
@jpzxcvbnm Pensions as I mentioned could be the same size and fifty billion cheaper (with California actually being able to save 8-10 billion every year if it did as I suggested) Got news for you, considering the massive bailouts and the massive credit given by the Fed, the private sector is even more poorly run than the government, in the government there is accountability, not in the private sector. You would not believe the pandering to executives, even failed executives.
@Meade556 Actually no. Everyone knows that government is inefficient. But as for the private sector, you are talking about a few entities. Businesses on all levels across the country Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, or they will lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures.
@jpzxcvbnm Government is not always inefficient. The general perception exists that it is because government only comes into the spotlight when it does its job badly. Consider this: would any news organization constantly trump "The Government did a fanstastic job this week, no food poisoning and worker safety laws are still making our workplaces safer." Government agencies have plenty of competition
@Meade556 Look at the post office and DMV. Well safety laws are present in private sectors too. And there may be some local governments that do manage things well, depending on who is in charge. But on state and definitely federal level, just look at where our money goes. In CA we have this BS emission law. It's stricter than the EPA and yet people fail more often due to smog. I'm saying that when private sector doesn't improve, they get fired. In government, they just borrow money.
@jpzxcvbnm Like I said unions at all levels on governments, tolerate and even encourage "encouragement to leave" one of the reasons, at least in my experience, there is so much smog in so many parts of California is not because of regulation, but because there is a lot of industry, at least in the places I have been. Besides our Federal Govt, even now is paying out, in REAL TERMS, negative interest rates on bonds, when Treasury rolled over debt in July-early October, it was making money
@jpzxcvbnm There is a saying in finance, when a crisis hits, buy Treasuries and bottled water, which is why even though there was a downgrade, the bond interest rate went so low, because there was more demand for Treasuries than there were Treasuries on the market. Also the ratings Agencies are incompetents, giving iffy subprime mortgage securites AAA ratings
@Meade556 Well people who buy bonds may be attracted to the interest rates, but those who get loans will hurt them, so I'm not sure about the higher demand. I wish we didn't lose our AAA credit rating, but at some point, we have to stop raising the debt ceiling.
@jpzxcvbnm Not really, as I said the point is to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP, eliminating the wars and HALF the cost overruns in DOD would bring in immediate savings of around $270 billion this year alone. Doing similar things in HS around $20 billion. Since the magic number for reducing our debt to about 40% or less of GDP is $4 trillion, but really preferably $4.5 - $5 trillion, the amount of tax increases there needs to be suddenly becomes a lot less painful
@Meade556 Well SS, medicare, and medicaid actually cost more than the wars. So only cutting defense and not other things won't solve the problem. There has to be unilateral cuts across the board. If you increase taxes, it's difficult to sustain a large amount of revenue if more people are unemployed. And more importantly, government spending increases automatically on autopilot. Not only do we have to cut projected future spending, but spending that lowers the actual debt.
@jpzxcvbnm Read my previous post, besides the trillion in cuts already agreed to, across the board in non-defense spending, the 500 billion in Medicare spending saved as a result of Obamacare (because it gives the govt more bargaining power), it leaves a need for only modest tax increases like letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest, raising capital gains, eliminating subsidies for overseas corporate activities.
@Meade556 Obamacare costs over 2 trillion dollars. I don't know where he gets that revenue. I don't think Obamacare funded Medicare. It's the other way around. Medicare was taken to fund Obamacare.
@jpzxcvbnm A lot of that is through new taxes, price controls and limits on how much insurance companies can set aside for bureaucracy. Currently, under Maine State law for example an insurance company only has to pay $65 dollars out in care for every $100 dollars it receives a premium. Obamacare gives the states discretion on how high they can set the bar, but the minimum is an insurance company can only give $25 to bureaucracy.
@Meade556 Obamacare costs over 2 trillion dollars. I don't know where he gets that revenue. I don't think Obamacare funded Medicare. It's the other way around. Medicare was taken to fund Obamacare. I do agree about eliminating subsidies for overseas corporate activities.
@jpzxcvbnm Okay good, right there we have saved $600 billion over ten years without having to increase taxes. I used to think that too about Obama care until I discovered that Obamacare gives the govt more bargaining power to drive down prices for Medicare, thus reducing its growth by about $50 billion a year, but this is told as 500 billion being taken from Medicare to pay for it, in reality it is just checking the growth of Medicare without throwing anyone off it
@jpzxcvbnm For example FBI will compete with State and Local police and they try and outdo each other. Dept of Health in a City will try and compete with a State Agency and Federal agencies, and so on and so on. By contrast in the big corporations the attitude is far less about innovation and more about taking orders, deference to the boss, not encouragement to do your job better. At some meetings whenever anyone has to explain a point in detail, I have seen execs glare at him or her
@Meade556 On the federal level, we do need law enforcement. Other things we don't really need. Let it be done by the states. Why can't the department of education be abolished and be left up to the state and the cities. When one state's education is broke, other states have to bail them out. And sure their are a lot of douchebag CEO's in corporations, but if that corporation starts to fall apart by not taking people's advice, then that CEO will get fired.
@jpzxcvbnm Not really, I mean Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein led their companies to disaster and they are still in charge. Also there is this medium sized insurance company in Raleigh, Genworth, its CEO presided over catastrophic policies of exposing his company to the subprime housing markets in Spain and Greece. He is still in charge and his pay has not been touched.
@Meade556 Well it's probably because they got bailed out, which is crony capitalism. Plus the government didn't properly oversight it. Most businesses would not allow their leader to stay in power if they are screwing their company. It's suicide.
@jpzxcvbnm Genworth did not accept TARP because Treasury tried to limit exec compensation to $600,000 a year as part of the deal of receiving taxpayer money. Genworth does have Fed credit, but the Board of Directors and shareholders have not fired Frasier or a lot of the senior executives responsible. The Govt did not oversee it because Bush's people did not believe in the need for regulation
@jpzxcvbnm Bailouts are not a problem as long as they structured in such a way that punishes the executive suite severely for its actions, believe me, if as part of TARP all these financial people were put on Federal salaries they would soon know not to screwup because they would fear that kind of "austerity"
@Meade556 Bailouts are a problem because we the taxpayers pay for it. And TARP was not managed correctly just like the stimulus, which I am against both. I assume you don't support bail outs.
@jpzxcvbnm I do, but as I said they have to be structured right, so that the employees do not suffer but the executive suite is punished, the Govt did do that for the auto industry but not for the Financial sector, the only cushion provided in the auto bailouts was that bondholders were not forced to accept a write down on the face value of their bonds, but that was it, their skin was on the line if they did not repair the companies and fast.
@Meade556 Wow, I'm surprised. I thought people on the left (I don't know if you are, but you sound like it) are against the bailouts. Well why GM and not other companies or even small businesses. In economics, businesses suceed and fail. When those businesses fail, they learn from their mistakes and improve unless they get bailed out.
@jpzxcvbnm The GM bailout is proof of how, if structured right, a bailout can save a company, improve it and get a good deal for the taxpayer. BTW Congress passed an act allowing the Fed to lend directly to small businesses instead of throwing money at the banks and hoping they did something with it, but the Fed has not used that power.
@jpzxcvbnm People on the left are against the bailouts not neccessarily because they do not recognize that they were needed but in the way it was asked for ie "Yeah we crashed the economy but we're so awesome, smart, dynamic and innovative you must give us $700 billion right away no questions asked, immediately, you jerks!" Not surprisingly the response was a big FU
@jpzxcvbnm Consider this, if Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon were fired as a condition for accepting TARP money, and if the remaining directors were all forced to live on the salary of the Secretary of the Treasury $192,000 dollars a year, they would rapidly learn never to do that again
@jpzxcvbnm The point of a bailout is to make sure taxpayers get good value for money, they have with the auto industry but not with the financial sector
@Meade556 Who decides what's best for the taxpayers. What about the smaller businesses or other big companies. You do understand why many people on the left and right are against this. People have to pay out of their pockets to cover this. And also, this isn't real capitalism with the bailouts.
@jpzxcvbnm Of course I understand why people are against it, I was against the auto bailouts initially, the only reason I am for them now is that I see that they have actually worked and really turned those companies around. The upshot is that now they are creating jobs, competing better in foreign markets and with new fuel efficient cars (because now engineers sit on the Boards) it will cost us less to fill up at the pump. In the long run a good deal
@jpzxcvbnm The Government did structure GM, Ford and Chrysler bailouts better, where shareholders lost everything and bondholders became the new shareholders, that included union worker health and pension funds. But as a result, and with the new EPA regulations all those companies are coming out with more fuel efficient cars and the companies now are competing better in the international market than before the crash.
@Meade556 Well I don't know if it's better. I mean I know a lot of people who don't like GM due to it being run by government. I don't think Ford took the bailout. But if GM failed, then let them fail. The taxpayers shouldn't pick up the tab.
@jpzxcvbnm GM is not run by the Govt anymore because they are now returning profits, Ford did accept the bailout, but the bailouts of those two companies resulted in executives being dismissed and paycuts for everyone, including union workers, but this year those two companies have added thousands of jobs to the economy and exports of American cars are growing, so I would say, in that sense we won, and the bailouts were not nearly as expensive as TARP
@jpzxcvbnm Dept. Edu primary job is handing out Pell Grants and some scholarship programs for especially bright students as well as funding some overseas study opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the only bureaucrats who actually interfere are few in number and generally are teachers who go around schools trying to find out how to make lessons more interesting, engaging and appealing to all three learning groups at the same time
@Meade556 Department of education mandates certain curriculum to all states. And the D of Ed should not be handling money. Scholarships and all that should be given to the states. Plus there is lost funding when distributing money down the chain. And a lot of the money does not make it to the teachers.
@jpzxcvbnm There you have a point, but that is due to Republicans and their love of block grants, which do result in more waste. It should be part of curriculum everywhere though, to learn about the Civil War, the Revolution, Chemistry, Physics, Biology etc, all of our major competitors do it and at a far greater level
@Meade556 Well I'm in favor of private school vouchers and the money should be given to the parents. Well math and science is fine. But it's what they tell teachers to teach that gets to me. For example in history class, I was always taught in subtle ways that progressive ideas were good. But no one talked about Calvin Coolidge and some other true capitalists that I think are great presidents. It's always certain things they want to teach. Now look what Brown did with this new curriculum.
@Meade556 You suggest in raising taxes and modest cuts. I disagree. But I think we are just going to keep arguing back and forth on this issue. I assume that you are a public employee and receive pensions. I would probably understand why you would be upset if you lost pensions.
@jpzxcvbnm No as I said I am private sector. And yes I do suggest tax increases and modest cuts, it is what works best. I mean people talk about not becoming a second Greece. Before the scandal, DSK said that a new bailout of Greece should either be 0% or even a negative loan so that the Greek Government could stimulate the economy and also wanted bondholders, four months before such a thing was agreed upon, to take a big writedown in their Greek debt and reduce the interest rate on Greek bonds
@Meade556 Greece is falling apart because of spending without any restraint. They owe so much money, not only to their borrowers, but to the entitlements that they owe to people. They can't pay the money back, and they are not making drastic spending cuts. And Germany has bailed them out before. And when the Greece government tries to curb spending, look at all the riots. It also has raised some taxes. Mismanagement of government.
@jpzxcvbnm Actually what first happened in 2009 was drastic spending cuts and taxes decreases. Then as the new Government tried to get a hand on the situation, bond holders panicked and demanded higher interest rates or else. What actually happened in Greece is that their tax collecting services sucked. Another thing was that the new right wing Government in the 2000s decided to lower retirement ages to 53 to try and win popular support.
@Meade556 In 2009, I don't know what spending cuts you are talking about. The tax didn't decrease, it was just continuing from Bush's tax policies. As for Greece, that's what I'm saying about this entitlement mentality. You can't spend money you don't have or can't afford.
@jpzxcvbnm No I mean Greece cut taxes and the Obama Administration has cut taxes. The Greek people accepted an increase in the retirement age to 65 and a 5% cut in pensions across the board, what they are furious about is even deeper cuts, they feel they should not be made to pay for the recklessness of a right wing governments and its pals in the financial sector.
@Meade556 Well I don't know where he cut taxes. He extended the Bush tax cuts by compromising with the house Republicans to extend the unemployment benefits. When you say "right wing", that can mean something different. A classical liberal is considered a conservative. Also, liberals are not innocent of wasteful spending and recklessness. Well whoever is at fault (I doubt it's one party), the fact is, there has to be drastic cuts or Greece will collapse.
@jpzxcvbnm The Greeks already had drastic cuts, which is why their protests are so violent now, a second round of drastic cuts. In the Stimulus only $417 billion was actual new spending, the rest of it was aid to states and tax cuts. That is why DSK said that any new bailout needed to be a real bailout and not a loan. It is so bad there that Germans are now collecting taxes, but DSK was right in that cuts have only deeped the greek recession and they need a stimulus, NOW
@jpzxcvbnm I defend public sector workers because I recognize the essential work they do, the fact that they do the work they do means I can sleep easier in my bed at night knowing my food supply is one of the safest in the world, my tap water won't kill me and does not contain parasites and that when I go to a beach, the water won't bleach my skin
@Meade556 Well no one supports no government. And of course no one wants dirty water. But sometimes government contracts some of these jobs out to private companies.
@jpzxcvbnm Typically when that happens costs balloon. A case in point is DOD, as a percentage of GDP and in real terms, we spend more now than we did during the Cold War. Dept. Justice and HS also experienced huge increases in budgets due to contracting. Obama has recently come forth saying that contractors should all be put on the Federal pay scales because it is ridiculous that a lot of contractors earn more than Feds or Cabinet Secretaries
@Meade556 Well of course we spend a lot of money on defense even after inflation. And yes contractors do make a lot of money. I'm not against cutting defense, it's certain things in it. As long as the government cuts other things like the department of education, commerce, laber, housing, energy, I'm okay with certain defense cuts as long as it doesn't cut soldier pay.
@jpzxcvbnm Labor, Commerce, Energy, HUD, Education are all comparatively cheap, cheaper and less well funded than they are by most of our competitors, and the cuts I have proposed here tonight would not affect soldiers pay or Federal pay either. Consider that $270 billion in cuts now, as well as the corresponding decrease in future interest payments and the inflation that goes into projected budget deficits would decrease the deficit by about 3.2 trillion over ten years.
@jpzxcvbnm As for accountability in government, unions do make it more difficult to fire people, even incompetents outright, but what they do not stop and even tacitly encourage where incompetence is proven, is "encouragement to leave" In this way an extra 60,000 Feds are fired, beyond the 25,000 officially fired.
@Meade556 Government workers don't cost less and it doesn't mean their services are equal with the private sector. But that's not where most of the waste goes. For example, SS and medicare fraud. And in CA, we have high taxes and yet our unemployment is about %12, which is higher than the national average. Higher taxes does not lead to less unemployment. Businesses create jobs and if you burden them with regulations and taxes, they will hire less or move elsewhere.
@jpzxcvbnm Government workers do cost less, look at the Federal pay scale then compare it to salaries at Xe (Blackwater). Everyone likes to talk about waste like Solyndra, which was insignificant in the grand scheme of things but not the 295 billion in cost overruns at DoD. In Texas there are extremely low taxes and the greatest number of minimum wage jobs as a percentage of the workforce anywhere in the country. Nevada has much lower taxes than CA and a higher unemployment rate.
@jpzxcvbnm Lastly regulations are needed to prevent crises like 2008, Canada had higher taxes and higher regulation than we did and they are doing just fine. Furthermore NY, Mass and MD have higher taxes than Texas and they have less unemployment than Texas. Also a lot of states like NV, AR, LA, receive more in Federal aid than they pay in taxes, whereas CA, subsidises those states.
@Meade556 Sure regulations are good. Bush tried to regulate it, but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said everything was okay. In fact, subprime mortgages were forced on the banks. And the SEC didn't regulate the transactions of wall street.
@jpzxcvbnm No he did not and subprime were not forced on the banks. Either the banks are lying now or they were lying then. If it was bad they had a duty to their investors to say so, but they said it was all great, or they are lying now and it was not pushed on them, which mean they were also lying then, when they said it was great. Either way they were lying and like I said the SEC did not regulate, thus there were problems from lack of oversight.
@Meade556 Well it was coerced on banks from fines. If banks did not comply with giving out loans to those who are not qualified, they would get fined. There are other things also. It was to ensure bs fairness for low income and minorities, even if they have bad credit. So of course wall street took advantage of it and the lack of oversight which Barney Frank is in charge of, ignored it. If you do deep research, you'll find the truth. Also read the Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell.
@jpzxcvbnm There were no fines, I AM FROM THE FINANCE WORLD. I know. Banks had a very low threshold at which they had to give out loans to poor people, and they issued a number far, far above that threshold, obviously they thought they could get a gain from it, in the form of higher fees and the higher interest rates on these mortgages to squeeze people.
@Meade556 No one is debating about the subprime mortgage loans. But you cannot exclude the big active role that government played in this. There was political pressure towards the banks from HUD and the CRA to give out more loans to the poor and minorities. I'm against these loans. But it's all about this political correctness that we have to have a certain percentage of people own homes. I'm saying if you researched it deeply, you will find out that government played an active role in this.
@jpzxcvbnm You know I got to admit I get pretty tired of people telling me to research this deeply because I say the crash is primarily the fault of the private sector. I have done my homework and was around the creation of all this. All the Government did was not stop the banks the banks are the ones who willingly issued the mortgages to subprime lenders. HUD works in tandem to BUILD housing CRA was passed in 1977, by that logic we should have had a housing crash in 1984/85
@Meade556 I say this because I have also done my homework. HUD did push for more subprime mortgage loans. In 1996, HUD set a target that 42 percent of the mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie were to be financed with people of low incomes. That trend carried over. Well whatever, we are at an impasse as to who is primarily at fault. But we do agree that both are at fault.
@jpzxcvbnm I know about those, there is one huge difference between those loans and loans pushed by the private sector, those loans were extremely low interest, about 1% a year instead of the 9-15% of subprime and most of F&Fs loans "conforming loans" were for the middle class, in fact the subprime mortgages issued by F&F in the 90s have had a lower delinquency rate than ones issued by the private sector
@Meade556 But even the subprime mortgage loans in the last decade (0 down payment, high interest, ARM), was backed by F and F. Well the standards weren't as lax as the current loans and the middle class has a higher chance of not defaulting compare to the poor. Why would every financial institution give out loans if they knew they can't pay it back. That's poor economic judgment. Naturally it is wiser to give loans to whom they have good credit history to pay back the loans.
@jpzxcvbnm I know the point is they were not thinking RATIONALLY. The market being made up of human beings is fundamentally emotional, the slightest bit of bad news likely to send it up or down. The reason they did what they did is that by writing more mortgages they received more fees, which they could report as profit, and the huge interest payments they were getting. Unprecedented profits meant unprecedented bonuses and they assumed housing prices would go on rising or at least not fall.
@jpzxcvbnm One has to ask what charter schools do not spend on, that public schools do. The reason Brown is going on about gays is that Democrats are afraid of being economically progressive, so they make up for it, by trying to be social liberals.
@Meade556 Charter schools spend less because they aren't unionized and can get fired for poor performance. But also teachers can get rewarded with greater incentives if they do well unlike public schools where bad and good teachers are paid the same. CA is already economically progressive. And trying to be social liberals should not run in our schools. I mean look at prop 8. Most people supported it. The majority is against what Brown did.
Excuse me? Paid family leave for how long? Did I hear that correctly? Ten years?! TEN!?!?! Who the fuck do you people think you are? Do you really believe sitting through an interview and then being chosen to DO A JOB earns you the right to suck on some businesses tit for the rest of your life? Really though, who will pay for this and why do you think you deserve ten fucking years off of work, paid, no less.
Totally just wasted my time by not even mentioning any of the real issues. Ask an economist this question instead of a union rep whom we have no reason to believe is qualified to comment...
Unions are a necessary evil in countries where there is no worker protection.
Unfortunately, they've gotten out of hand in some areas, and give people the idea that they have a right to a certain wage and benefits.
Easy solution to unions, companies contract out all work to organizations/companies/unions. Will pay X amount to the organization for labor force, your organization will pay the wages, benefits, medical, etc.
You liberals think that in any way possible every person in america should get a pony and a rainbow not matter if they earned it or not. Guess what? Whos gona pay for all those ponys and rainbows? shit aint cheap.
@SMWhit3out They're like little children. You remember, when you were young you thought your city was the center of the world and nothing else really existed outside of it, apply that same child's logic to the economy, and you have liberals, but instead they're grown adults who utilize the economy. Why anyone would believe they deserve ten years off work. paid, and still deserve a job, I have no idea. It really makes me wonder if these people are clinically insane.
unions have good and bad points. I think they were an amazing revolution for workers who suffered through the 30's and there was a great need to bring power to the people but unions, like corporations, are made up of humans. Humans always push the envelope and push it too far. Unions have turned into a kind of mafia, removing power from the people just as they accuse business of. Too many individuals are stripped of their rights and choices because of unions.
@Auscann Unions have always been the mafia, they just became "legal". Go read some history. Yes, 88% of the country loses out on representation in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic, because unions have "rights" legislated to them at the expense of non unionized labor, expense of consumers and a free market. Sort of like a join "us or die" mentality, except, no ones joining, yet their benefits keep rolling in. It's getting ridiculous and it is definitely discrimination.
@Auscann Unions have always been the mafia, they just became "legal". Go read some history. Yes, 88% of the country loses out on representation in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic, because unions have "rights" legislated to them at the expense of non unionized labor, expense of consumers and a free market. Sort of like a join "us or die" mentality, except, no ones joining, yet their benefits keep rolling in. It's getting ridiculous and it is definitely discrimination.
Think about it, the UAW has set the benchmark for middle class wages over the years people need to wise up and look past their own jealousy and fight for union jobs. Union busting is a way to divide and conquer (Put aside your anger over your own low wage and look at this from a different angle) BASHING and BUSTING UNIONS will not make your life better!!!!! It will drive down all wages!!!! Think about it!!!!
@FluxCapacitor2008 You're right... we're so jealous that we don't have laws written for us to allow us to be spoiled bitches and hold our boss' business hostage. Only a brainwashed unionist would call that jealousy.
Unions started off as a good and necessary idea, now you all are no different from the greedy bastards whose money you're taking. Just a group of entitled bitches. Nothing to be jealous about there at all.
I do not respect any institution that survives solely by government decree
People are so brainwashed by the fox news right wing mouth piece; they have people fighting to drive down union wages instead of fighting for better wages for themselves
Excuse me, who do you think buys stuff in American shops? Mexicans?
The buying power of the middle class has a really big part in the economy.
Nothing stops inflation totally. So if you dont have people representing you to get more in pay over time you will effectually LOSE buying power even when you have the same pay as the years before. Everyone knows that if you want to make a good and fair deal you need to have people that know what they are doing, aka union for workers.
can the laws be changed like in Wis.? Seems like unions are fighting to keep the laws we do have in place. We don't have to be in the union where I work. And we get the same benefits that the dues paying members do.
@smoke2164 Thats called an "Open Union" I'm personally opposed to them because they end up weakening those that bargain on your behalf. So in other-words some would call that reaping the fruit of another's labor. I'm not saying you're intentionally dodging paying in or leeching. Just saying how it functions in short. Some people feel like unions are to protect the lazy, which unfortunately in some cases they do, but they also forget the things that Unions help establish, like Workplace safety
Unions are parasites that protect and encourage mediocrity instead of meritocracy, and impede true progress and innovation , which is what really lifts all workers salaries.
@toddsaunders456 It only lifted the educated idiots salaries. The avergage labor worker loses without the union they get fired because the employer knows the illegals will show up to work everyday for minimum wage.
@toddsaunders456 And I suppose all those people that suffered from terrible work conditions and perminant disability would be inclined to agree with you 100%, if only we could have that 70 hour work week back with child labor and no safety regulations only then can we progress to our true glory! Crack open a history book and look into labor movements. Middle class was built on Unions, I just feel more need to hold more responsibility for their members like some Unions do.
@phantomkitsunezero hence crack-head in the past . Just because it was a good idea back then , doesn't mean they are good now. You sound like a stupid f$ing greedy uneducated moron.Talking of History books. Put down the communist manifesto and actually read a book . People were in the past not dumbass drones like yourself.People realized nothing comes for free. I bet you can't change your own tire. I bet you can't make change.I bet you can't read the sign at the gas pump to not use your cell .DA
@NARDDB I wish I was a greedy moron, I would be a supervisor today, but my self given morals are against some of the current practices that they are told to carry out. A: I never read the Communist Manifesto, B: I changed 4 tired just this last month. C: Change starts at the roots in any tree D: I don't own a cell phone so those signs are irrelevant to me. Now back in context, a Union was meant to promote professionalism and safety, unfortunately like with many, corruption tarnish anything.
@phantomkitsunezero well dude , the long hair doesn't fool anyone.and unions now are not under the same goal as then. now they are corrupted by the leaders who are just as powerful if not more powerful than the company's they cry about. and your last sentence is right the UNIONS ARE JUST AS CORRUPT!!!UNIONS WANT MORE MONEY FOR LESS SKILL!!! DROOL ON YOUR SKROOL DESK ? DON'T WORRY WE GET YOU IN A UNION A MAKE MORE THAN YOUR WORTH!!! CORRUPTION IS IN EVERY CLASS YOU CAN THINK OF BUT'S STILL CORUPT
Jobs are slowly coming back to America. Businesses that went to China are slowly discovering that the Chinese really don't want to work for free either.
bddc201 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I work in a right to work state. I am college educated and not "Lazy" by ANY MEANS.... and it is awful. Most of the companies treat their workers like SHIT.. No Benefits... LOW WAGES... NO BENEFITS... and the managers openly walk around and remind employees that we work in a "Right to Work" state and we have NO RIGHTS... That is not fair.. How does that hurt people? You have more poverty, more stress, more unemployment.. and people giving up. Why SLAVE for someone?
Yodle2012 1 month ago
@patsaxon Wow, what a bunch of lies. American productivity has steadily improved over the last several decades. Those gains have not been shared with the workers who actually made those gains.
Workers in China are forbidden to form unions precisely so that wages can be kept at substinence levels. Is that what you want for America?
GL0BEmaster 1 month ago
Chinese workers, concerned about the International Trade Union Confederation on trade unions in China exchanges and cooperation.
yumenyukuaile 2 months ago
Wrong and totally wrong! The unions are the reason for American manufactures out sourcing to China! Union are greedy and ask way too much money for producing less products. Workers in China can compete against any Union worker and will take their jobs away!
patsaxon 4 months ago
@patsaxon No one can compete with slave labor.
bddc201 3 weeks ago
I think Union serfs who produce all the grain need to stop begging the baron for more oats.
If the Unions actually pooled resources and opened their own cooperative companies and formed cooperative coalitions whereby they supported one another's business and sold their goods in cooperative marketplaces which they marketed around their local communities, with today's technology they could successfully compete with big businesses and at the very least find niche markets.
Laughingblades 4 months ago
Comment removed
Laughingblades 4 months ago
FUCK UNIONS!!! They suck the hiring juice out of a business and look at these so called "union leaders" a bunch of arm chair academics and feminist.
fargonbastedge 4 months ago
@fargonbastedge In India we used to say India first, Indians first. I laugh at all you stupid Americans who fight against your own workers for multinational corporations. You people have strong emotional reactions to words you don't even know the meanings of, you hold strong positions on things you know nothing about, and you treat politics like a holy war and a sporting event. America isn't even owned by Americans it's owned by multinational corporations, and you think you own the world.
Laughingblades 4 months ago
She is so full of it, why would they bring a union leader on a show to tell whether or not unions are good? Total Bullshit.
shiningbeans 4 months ago
Public Sector Unions should be outlawed. They are soaking us here in NJ. It is time for the tax payers to rise up and shake off the oppression of the public sector unions. They are not necessary in 2011. Besides, have you EVER gotten anything close to "good service" from a member of a public sector union? DMV, your city hall, local tax collector, anybody? Of course not, because they feel untouchable because of their union backing them. The public suffers greatly because of these lazy leeches.
mhlconnects 4 months ago
@mhlconnects Oh really? I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Especially considering all our major competitors have better paid public sectors and a higher degree of unionization than we do, including the Japanese, where Union leaders sit on the board of directors of auto companies and in Germany as well. Besides in the GM restructuring unions took a big hit, shareholders were wiped out and bondholders, including union health and pension plans became the new shareholders.
Meade556 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In March 2009, Katz was expelled from the CWA after an internal tribunal unanimously found her guilty of financial mismanagement. She was ordered by the tribunal to reimburse more than $138,000 to the union for funds improperly used for personal and political expenses. Katz has filed a lawsuit to regain her status with the union.
007chucknorris007 4 months ago
Okay. Unions do raise workers wages and benefits, but the idea that it helps the economy is bullshit. How does it benefit the economy as a whole? More people get laid off because the employer fires or not hires people due to the increasing cost of the unions demands. Sure it helps some people, but screws others over. Or the cost gets shifted to the consumer which pisses everyone else off.
jpzxcvbnm 5 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Wrong, such actions shift the aggregate demand curve outward and if the price was going to rise, companies would have found an excuse anyway as that way they can get more profit and can always attribute the rise to some other factor, besides a contented workforce is an efficient workforce. Also why is it that everyone complains about unions when union members almost never draw salaries higher than $100,000? Or is it that you have something against the middle class?
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 First of all, $100,000 is a lot of money and someone who gets that kind of money should earn it and not because they are in a union. For example, the teacher's in a union should never make that kind of money unless they are the rare teacher who is excellent at teaching. In Wisconsin, the average teacher makes $90,000 a year! That's more than most middle class makes. Unions also make rules that make force others to follow. Many are violent and want control. Youtube daycare union.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm You are assuming Union members all get salaries like that, they don't most are more like $40,000-$50,000 that salary is only for very highly specialized people like scientists working for state and local governments, so their skills should draw a good salary. Teachers hold our children's futures in our hands and I don't know where you got that figure, last I checked it was $25,000 lower, even before Walker in Wisconsin. Which unions are violent?
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 It's about $51,000 base salary + $38,000 in benefits. Plus they only work 9 months. You can google the numbers. It's about $89000. Teacher's union resist charter schools and private school vouchers. More money is spent, but test scores remain flat. SEIU attacks a black man with US flag. Long Shoreman's union in Seattle. Attacks on the tea party. You can youtube many attacks. Unions overseas are worse. Look at Greece.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm In my experience the benefits of union members are often exaggerated, their benefits always include the amount they contribute from their salary to both pension and healthcare. Plus, as with the computations for Federal workers eventual SocSec payments are included even though all pay full FICA. Have you ever seen charter schools and vouchers? I have, in Florida, its a disaster, believe me. SEIU has changed and that was near 40 years ago.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Actually SEIU is still pretty aggressive today. Also, unions force people to join unions. In states that are not "right to work" states, they have to join a union and pay union fees. Why can't it be an option? No one is saying that all charter/private schools beat every public school. There are some good public schools I've seen. But as for me, I was stuck in a school with inferior quality. I just wanted the CHANCE to try a different school.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah I know about what they did in Seattle, but the Port Authorities are in breach of contract. Not all union rules are lovable, but I understand why they do it. Not so that they can rake in ever greater fees, but because the people who don't join unions enjoy union protections if enough people do sign on, so such rules exist so that all workers have a stake in the decisions of a union, participate and do not just free load.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Like I said I was educated in a Christian school and my parents still paid taxes for State schools and did not complain about it because they realized that schools are needed for everyone and that if they wanted to send me to a christian school that was their choice, to pay for the upkeep of civilization that was their duty as American citizens. In the realm of public services, contracting should send shivers up everyones' spines. What are they cutting back on?
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 That's great what your parents did. But my parents paid taxes but couldn't afford private schools. Why are my parents forced to pay taxes for education and have to pay out of their own pocket for a private school. Then maybe they should pay less taxes if they send me to a private school. The education department is corrupt. In CA where I'm from, Gov Brown is mandating history contributions of homosexuals as a curriculum. Some parents don't like that, but children have to learn about it
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm What you say sounds great, to some extent, at first until you consider that with less competition from private schools and with so much money because people have lower taxes or are not paying education taxes, they raise the price beyond what public school would have cost, negating any cost control and ultimately pushing down wages to increase profits. I disagree with Gov. Brown, but I don't see how being taught that, in the long run is so terrible. We learn about MLK, why not H. Milk?
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 First of all, the public sector has jacked up the price over the years. It's a monopoly. More spending per student, but flat test scores. Charter schools spend less than public. And for private schools, the parents can pay the difference of the cost and the subsidy. Why teach about someone's sexual orientation and not accomplishment? Plus it's not the schools job to teach morality. And if parents don't want their kids to learn it, they don't have a choice to leave unless they're rich.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Oh and try the LA Times budget game, you can see that California can solve its problems by raising taxes and making some modest cuts, ultimately however tax increases hurt less than spending cuts because with spending cuts a service ceases and a state loses the revenue from the activities of that program offsetting much of the theoretical savings. Tax increases, while unpleasant mean continuation of services and no losses from the programs.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 CA is over half a trillion in debt. If you raise taxes on the wealthy %100 across the country without any deep spending cuts, the government can only sustain itself for 4 to 6 months at best. Spending is the big problem. You can balance the budget by significantly raising taxes and modest cuts. But you are not tackling the debt issue. Plus if you raise taxes on the wealthy or even small business, you risk them leaving the state and taking away jobs. Government wastes too much money.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Besides that mob included SEIU members but it was NOT an SEIU demonstration. It was a bunch of Irish hoods. I have, with my own two eyes, seen teabaggers attack union members who were counter demonstrating or threaten them with guns while union members were unarmed as for unions in Greece they are being violent because of the severity of the cuts and they feel that it is the financial elites, writing bad products, issuing junk government and corporate bonds that is the cause
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The Long Shoreman's Union of Seattle is right to say that the Port Authorities are in breach of contract. People also like to cite Boeing, the Unions are not opposed to a plant opening outside Washington, they would be fine if it opened in NY or Mass. But they know that faith based education systems are not as good as more secular ones (and I was educated in a christian school) and know that if there are any faults with planes down the line, they will be blamed not SC
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Lol. Well I don't think we will agree on this issue. But anyways, to respond. First, I feel that there are bad apples in all groups. But many times the unions don't police themselves up. Look at the teacher's union. There are really bad almost criminal teachers who don't get fired or may end up fired but with all these benefits. I mean there are many examples and you can youtube or google them. Look at Michelle Rhee and what she tried to do. But the teacher's union bullied her.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Actually, in my experience with teachers' unions they work hard to police themselves and warn bad members, if they do not improve they will receive less protection and will face career termination, which is where you get a bunch of these "I used to be union and they were so mean to me" people. As for Michelle Rhee, I live in DC and the unions bullied her not because she wanted to get rid of incompetents, which they were happy to help with, but because she wanted an excuse to...
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Michelle Rhee was trying to keep teachers accountable for the low performance of the students. Teachers were supposedly getting high ratings while many students fail in school. I do agree that administrative costs should be cut. You should watch the movie the cartel.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm downsize people and increase class sizes, exclaiming, hey we cut costs, whereas the unions wanted any savings in litigation costs to be used to decrease class size. She disagreed, they in turn said they would help with cracking down on incompetents but would not cut staff and increase class sizes, she decided to take them on anyway, even after administrative staff earning over $65,000 agreed to a three year wage freeze. She was the bully
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Actually, for the Federal government taxing the wealthy 100% would leave us with a $94 billion surplus this year. Much of the waste at the Federal, State, and Local level is with contractors, more work completed by government workers means the same level of service at less the cost. In any case unemployment tends to be lower in states with higher taxes and all other developed countries have much higher taxes than we do.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but we will only have a temporary surplus for a short time because we spend more money than receive any revenue. Remember the debt crisis? If you tax the wealthy, look what happens, they sent jobs overseas or transfer the burden to the taxpayers through increased prices. Most waste comes from all departments. And most spending goes to entitlements like pension funds, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm That is not true, play the simulation and considering who owns it the LA Times is hardly a liberal rag. What debt crisis? If your logic was true, Japan, France and Germany would have much higher unemployment, when their unemployment rate is lower than ours. Clinton raised taxes and not only were their surpluses but a booming economy as the increased corporate tax with fewer loopholes incentivized companies to invest more, so they could write it off.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Okay. The debt ceiling crisis was a big event that occurred a few months ago. You should look it up. Our AAA credit rating dropped. In terms of unemployment, taxes are not the sole reason for employment/unemployment. It's excessive spending and regulations. France and Germany get a lot of money from being pro-energy. What surplus? We were still in debt. Sure he balanced the budget, but that's due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah I know about the debt ceiling crisis that is different than a debt crisis and when our credit rating dropped so did our borrowing costs. No one ever explains how Companies spending money to comply with regulation costs us jobs nor do they explain how spending hurts. France and Germany are pro-green energy. We had a budget surplus in the 90s, and what Gingrich wanted to do was cut taxes and cut spending, but Clinton said no tax cuts, unless they're for poor people
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Actually the borrowing costs increased. France uses mostly nuclear energy and Germany doesn't use mostly green energy. There are many examples of how regulation kills business. You can just look it up. Forced minimum wage laws, all the red tape to start a business, unemployment benefit packages, etc. One of the biggest is Obamacare. You can see why most people are against it.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm No they did not, they went down from about 3% to 1.65% and now have settled around 2.2% France and Germany having been there and making HUGE investments in green energy and energy efficiency. Alan Kreuger did a study in the 90s which shows that employment increases when the minimum wage is increased and as I said all our major competitors have more red tape.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Cont'd.. Newt Gingrich passed welfare reform and worked with the president to create a balanced budget. And the economy boomed during Y2K when people spent tons of money. Plus technology booms greatly helped the economy. So the only thing I give credit for Clinton is that he worked with the Republican congress to help the economy.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Besides Welfare Reform was something Clinton happily pursued, and most of the savings were achieved through tax increases and cuts in military spending. People were spending lots of money with higher taxes, and as I explained the higher taxes made corporations invest as they knew they could only make greater profits of they invested their money, which set off an investment boom. It boomed inspite of the Republicans
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Actually Clinton rejected welfare reform twice before it passed a third time. But I give him credit for it though. A majority of the spending occured near the years 2000. Some people were spending because of the Y2k issue. Plus there was a lot of technology booms that caused more people to invest. But Clinton nor the Republicans should take credit for that. It was just the free market and some very fortunate events. Look at what happened with Jimmy Carter.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm When he did that it is because the first two would have basically abolished it, the third try was him forcing the Republicans to compromise. The technology boom was due in a large part to the incentives the higher taxes created. When companies invest in research, they get to write it off their taxable income, knowing they would not be able to just dole out big amounts in bonuses and dividends by simply having lower taxes in order to get those higher bonuses they needed to invest.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Through tax increases alone, Clinton cut the deficit by more than a half, much of the other reductions in the deficit and the surpluses, which were starting to pay down the debt, came from the economic incentives those higher taxes created along with the cuts in Military spending and later the Welfare Reform Act, but the surpluses would have been impossible without tax increases.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 He never paid down the debt. It's the same with almost every president since FDR. But yes the tax increases did help cut the deficit because it creates temporary revenue. But when demand/spending/consuming slows down, that's when the big taxes slow the economy. Keynesian economics does not work, just like stimulus spending. You can create a "surplus" by cutting spending. Look what happened with Jimmy Carter.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Its not so much about paying down the debt as it is reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP. Tax increases even if a recovery do not slow growth, look at the New Deal, lots of stimulus, lots of tax increases, lots of growth. The economy only contracted in 1937 when the stimulus was cut back on, when it was resumed things picked up again. In 1938, at rock bottom the GDP was $92 billion in 1933 it was $68 billion
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 The New Deal can be debated. But tax increases does slow growth if spending is stifled and unemployment is high. Why do you think the president keeps passing stimulus bills? Plus Jimmy Carter raised taxes and the economy sucked. Herbert Hoover (a Republican), passed stimulus and it also failed. Their has to be a balance.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Carter suffered from high gas prices and inflation, but during his administration 8,000,000 jobs were created and the economy still grew. Hoover passed no stimulus and Morgenthau's prophecies of doom were unfounded, the National Debt as a share of GDP increased very little during the New Deal because of the increases in GDP, all Hoover did was set up RFC, which slowed the rate of bank destruction, for that he deserves credit but it was not enough
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 I think we can just agree that we disagree on this issue lol. It's really hard to make my point over the computer anyways.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Increased prices are a myth again look at the 90s and considering the huge profit margins of these companies, they hardly have any good reason to raise prices, in fact speculation is driving up the price of oil and 1/3 paid no net taxes, they are fine. As for pension funds, Wall Street is stealing from those. If State and Local governments shifted their pensions from pension management into large index funds, where admin costs are far lower they would save $50 billion a yar
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Some companies do avoid taxes and they shouldn't. But in terms of speculation, it is true that price of oil is going up based on our consumption rate. If we drilled in Alaska and other places, we would increase our supply of oil. First of all with pensions, people should not get the pensions unless they pay %100 into it themselves, unless it's a private sector job. And if they want to move their pensions around, then I'm all for it.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The point is to be energy self sufficient, and that means green, we can drill all we want, we will still be dependent on foreign oil. Public sector employees have 401k pensions like private sector employees and why shouldn't govt as an employer, contribute to 401k accounts, just like the private sector. I said the pensions would be less costly if govts moved their funds to large index funds
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Solyndra was a huge scam. You can't compare green energy with fossil fuels. We won't have to be dependent of foreign fuel. We have tons of oil, it's just that they are not in liquid state. It does take more energy to extract it, but it's abundant. We have natural gas and nuclear energy. Government shouldn't contribute to 401k because the taxpayers are forced to pay for it. The burden falls on the CEO for a private company as opposed to the general population.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm 1. Solyndra was just $525 million not the $295 billion of DoD. The program the Solydra loans were a part of saved 33,000 jobs at Ford, GM, and Chrysler and created 8,000 green tech jobs. Only half the money has been spent, its target is to create or save 66,000 jobs, despite the setback it is ahead of schedule. As for taxpayers, they are just the customers of govt and pensions in the private sector are shifted on to the customer, don't be ridiculous
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Solyndra ended up bankrupt. There were warning signs, but the president still wasted taxpayer money on it. Over 1000 workers were laid off. There is room for cuts for DOD, but other programs will have to be cut also. And there is no statistic as to measuring a saved job. As for private companies, we can choose to purchase their goods. As for the government, we have to pay into it. Look at all the pensions that cities owe. Some are already collapsing.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I am not saying Solyndra does not stink but $525 million vs 295 billion is whopping and when you mention it to Republicans they shut their eyes and say "No it does not exist, no, no, no." Such behavior is adorable in a child, less so in people who are supposed to lead. Where I live, by raising taxes, Govts have staved off budget deficits and painful cuts in services and the unemployment rate is lower than in NV, LA, AL, MS or TX.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Yeah but you need top talent in all levels of Government to minimize inefficiency and waste, beating down on wages and pensions makes government more inefficient. Jon Huntsman understands this point. I disagree with him but with him, unlike most Republicans, the real argument is over size not quality of government, whereas most Rs want an inferior product because they do not think govt should work
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 No one wants an inferior product. The people want small government and efficient government. Not wages, but pensions cost a lot of money. It's about cost management. If you raise taxes, that money isn't even managed well. So why would people want to pay taxes into a system that wastes it. No one is against paying taxes, it has to be reasonable and be well managed.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Pensions as I mentioned could be the same size and fifty billion cheaper (with California actually being able to save 8-10 billion every year if it did as I suggested) Got news for you, considering the massive bailouts and the massive credit given by the Fed, the private sector is even more poorly run than the government, in the government there is accountability, not in the private sector. You would not believe the pandering to executives, even failed executives.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Actually no. Everyone knows that government is inefficient. But as for the private sector, you are talking about a few entities. Businesses on all levels across the country Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, or they will lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Government is not always inefficient. The general perception exists that it is because government only comes into the spotlight when it does its job badly. Consider this: would any news organization constantly trump "The Government did a fanstastic job this week, no food poisoning and worker safety laws are still making our workplaces safer." Government agencies have plenty of competition
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Look at the post office and DMV. Well safety laws are present in private sectors too. And there may be some local governments that do manage things well, depending on who is in charge. But on state and definitely federal level, just look at where our money goes. In CA we have this BS emission law. It's stricter than the EPA and yet people fail more often due to smog. I'm saying that when private sector doesn't improve, they get fired. In government, they just borrow money.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Like I said unions at all levels on governments, tolerate and even encourage "encouragement to leave" one of the reasons, at least in my experience, there is so much smog in so many parts of California is not because of regulation, but because there is a lot of industry, at least in the places I have been. Besides our Federal Govt, even now is paying out, in REAL TERMS, negative interest rates on bonds, when Treasury rolled over debt in July-early October, it was making money
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm There is a saying in finance, when a crisis hits, buy Treasuries and bottled water, which is why even though there was a downgrade, the bond interest rate went so low, because there was more demand for Treasuries than there were Treasuries on the market. Also the ratings Agencies are incompetents, giving iffy subprime mortgage securites AAA ratings
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well people who buy bonds may be attracted to the interest rates, but those who get loans will hurt them, so I'm not sure about the higher demand. I wish we didn't lose our AAA credit rating, but at some point, we have to stop raising the debt ceiling.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Not really, as I said the point is to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP, eliminating the wars and HALF the cost overruns in DOD would bring in immediate savings of around $270 billion this year alone. Doing similar things in HS around $20 billion. Since the magic number for reducing our debt to about 40% or less of GDP is $4 trillion, but really preferably $4.5 - $5 trillion, the amount of tax increases there needs to be suddenly becomes a lot less painful
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well SS, medicare, and medicaid actually cost more than the wars. So only cutting defense and not other things won't solve the problem. There has to be unilateral cuts across the board. If you increase taxes, it's difficult to sustain a large amount of revenue if more people are unemployed. And more importantly, government spending increases automatically on autopilot. Not only do we have to cut projected future spending, but spending that lowers the actual debt.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Read my previous post, besides the trillion in cuts already agreed to, across the board in non-defense spending, the 500 billion in Medicare spending saved as a result of Obamacare (because it gives the govt more bargaining power), it leaves a need for only modest tax increases like letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest, raising capital gains, eliminating subsidies for overseas corporate activities.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Obamacare costs over 2 trillion dollars. I don't know where he gets that revenue. I don't think Obamacare funded Medicare. It's the other way around. Medicare was taken to fund Obamacare.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm A lot of that is through new taxes, price controls and limits on how much insurance companies can set aside for bureaucracy. Currently, under Maine State law for example an insurance company only has to pay $65 dollars out in care for every $100 dollars it receives a premium. Obamacare gives the states discretion on how high they can set the bar, but the minimum is an insurance company can only give $25 to bureaucracy.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Obamacare costs over 2 trillion dollars. I don't know where he gets that revenue. I don't think Obamacare funded Medicare. It's the other way around. Medicare was taken to fund Obamacare. I do agree about eliminating subsidies for overseas corporate activities.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Okay good, right there we have saved $600 billion over ten years without having to increase taxes. I used to think that too about Obama care until I discovered that Obamacare gives the govt more bargaining power to drive down prices for Medicare, thus reducing its growth by about $50 billion a year, but this is told as 500 billion being taken from Medicare to pay for it, in reality it is just checking the growth of Medicare without throwing anyone off it
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm For example FBI will compete with State and Local police and they try and outdo each other. Dept of Health in a City will try and compete with a State Agency and Federal agencies, and so on and so on. By contrast in the big corporations the attitude is far less about innovation and more about taking orders, deference to the boss, not encouragement to do your job better. At some meetings whenever anyone has to explain a point in detail, I have seen execs glare at him or her
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 On the federal level, we do need law enforcement. Other things we don't really need. Let it be done by the states. Why can't the department of education be abolished and be left up to the state and the cities. When one state's education is broke, other states have to bail them out. And sure their are a lot of douchebag CEO's in corporations, but if that corporation starts to fall apart by not taking people's advice, then that CEO will get fired.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Not really, I mean Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein led their companies to disaster and they are still in charge. Also there is this medium sized insurance company in Raleigh, Genworth, its CEO presided over catastrophic policies of exposing his company to the subprime housing markets in Spain and Greece. He is still in charge and his pay has not been touched.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well it's probably because they got bailed out, which is crony capitalism. Plus the government didn't properly oversight it. Most businesses would not allow their leader to stay in power if they are screwing their company. It's suicide.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Genworth did not accept TARP because Treasury tried to limit exec compensation to $600,000 a year as part of the deal of receiving taxpayer money. Genworth does have Fed credit, but the Board of Directors and shareholders have not fired Frasier or a lot of the senior executives responsible. The Govt did not oversee it because Bush's people did not believe in the need for regulation
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Bailouts are not a problem as long as they structured in such a way that punishes the executive suite severely for its actions, believe me, if as part of TARP all these financial people were put on Federal salaries they would soon know not to screwup because they would fear that kind of "austerity"
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Bailouts are a problem because we the taxpayers pay for it. And TARP was not managed correctly just like the stimulus, which I am against both. I assume you don't support bail outs.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I do, but as I said they have to be structured right, so that the employees do not suffer but the executive suite is punished, the Govt did do that for the auto industry but not for the Financial sector, the only cushion provided in the auto bailouts was that bondholders were not forced to accept a write down on the face value of their bonds, but that was it, their skin was on the line if they did not repair the companies and fast.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Wow, I'm surprised. I thought people on the left (I don't know if you are, but you sound like it) are against the bailouts. Well why GM and not other companies or even small businesses. In economics, businesses suceed and fail. When those businesses fail, they learn from their mistakes and improve unless they get bailed out.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The GM bailout is proof of how, if structured right, a bailout can save a company, improve it and get a good deal for the taxpayer. BTW Congress passed an act allowing the Fed to lend directly to small businesses instead of throwing money at the banks and hoping they did something with it, but the Fed has not used that power.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm People on the left are against the bailouts not neccessarily because they do not recognize that they were needed but in the way it was asked for ie "Yeah we crashed the economy but we're so awesome, smart, dynamic and innovative you must give us $700 billion right away no questions asked, immediately, you jerks!" Not surprisingly the response was a big FU
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Consider this, if Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon were fired as a condition for accepting TARP money, and if the remaining directors were all forced to live on the salary of the Secretary of the Treasury $192,000 dollars a year, they would rapidly learn never to do that again
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well if they didn't get any federal aid, then they would get fired and rightfully so. No need to spend money on them.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The point of a bailout is to make sure taxpayers get good value for money, they have with the auto industry but not with the financial sector
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Who decides what's best for the taxpayers. What about the smaller businesses or other big companies. You do understand why many people on the left and right are against this. People have to pay out of their pockets to cover this. And also, this isn't real capitalism with the bailouts.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Of course I understand why people are against it, I was against the auto bailouts initially, the only reason I am for them now is that I see that they have actually worked and really turned those companies around. The upshot is that now they are creating jobs, competing better in foreign markets and with new fuel efficient cars (because now engineers sit on the Boards) it will cost us less to fill up at the pump. In the long run a good deal
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The Government did structure GM, Ford and Chrysler bailouts better, where shareholders lost everything and bondholders became the new shareholders, that included union worker health and pension funds. But as a result, and with the new EPA regulations all those companies are coming out with more fuel efficient cars and the companies now are competing better in the international market than before the crash.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well I don't know if it's better. I mean I know a lot of people who don't like GM due to it being run by government. I don't think Ford took the bailout. But if GM failed, then let them fail. The taxpayers shouldn't pick up the tab.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm GM is not run by the Govt anymore because they are now returning profits, Ford did accept the bailout, but the bailouts of those two companies resulted in executives being dismissed and paycuts for everyone, including union workers, but this year those two companies have added thousands of jobs to the economy and exports of American cars are growing, so I would say, in that sense we won, and the bailouts were not nearly as expensive as TARP
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Dept. Edu primary job is handing out Pell Grants and some scholarship programs for especially bright students as well as funding some overseas study opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the only bureaucrats who actually interfere are few in number and generally are teachers who go around schools trying to find out how to make lessons more interesting, engaging and appealing to all three learning groups at the same time
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Department of education mandates certain curriculum to all states. And the D of Ed should not be handling money. Scholarships and all that should be given to the states. Plus there is lost funding when distributing money down the chain. And a lot of the money does not make it to the teachers.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm There you have a point, but that is due to Republicans and their love of block grants, which do result in more waste. It should be part of curriculum everywhere though, to learn about the Civil War, the Revolution, Chemistry, Physics, Biology etc, all of our major competitors do it and at a far greater level
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well I'm in favor of private school vouchers and the money should be given to the parents. Well math and science is fine. But it's what they tell teachers to teach that gets to me. For example in history class, I was always taught in subtle ways that progressive ideas were good. But no one talked about Calvin Coolidge and some other true capitalists that I think are great presidents. It's always certain things they want to teach. Now look what Brown did with this new curriculum.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@Meade556 You suggest in raising taxes and modest cuts. I disagree. But I think we are just going to keep arguing back and forth on this issue. I assume that you are a public employee and receive pensions. I would probably understand why you would be upset if you lost pensions.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm No as I said I am private sector. And yes I do suggest tax increases and modest cuts, it is what works best. I mean people talk about not becoming a second Greece. Before the scandal, DSK said that a new bailout of Greece should either be 0% or even a negative loan so that the Greek Government could stimulate the economy and also wanted bondholders, four months before such a thing was agreed upon, to take a big writedown in their Greek debt and reduce the interest rate on Greek bonds
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Greece is falling apart because of spending without any restraint. They owe so much money, not only to their borrowers, but to the entitlements that they owe to people. They can't pay the money back, and they are not making drastic spending cuts. And Germany has bailed them out before. And when the Greece government tries to curb spending, look at all the riots. It also has raised some taxes. Mismanagement of government.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Actually what first happened in 2009 was drastic spending cuts and taxes decreases. Then as the new Government tried to get a hand on the situation, bond holders panicked and demanded higher interest rates or else. What actually happened in Greece is that their tax collecting services sucked. Another thing was that the new right wing Government in the 2000s decided to lower retirement ages to 53 to try and win popular support.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 In 2009, I don't know what spending cuts you are talking about. The tax didn't decrease, it was just continuing from Bush's tax policies. As for Greece, that's what I'm saying about this entitlement mentality. You can't spend money you don't have or can't afford.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm No I mean Greece cut taxes and the Obama Administration has cut taxes. The Greek people accepted an increase in the retirement age to 65 and a 5% cut in pensions across the board, what they are furious about is even deeper cuts, they feel they should not be made to pay for the recklessness of a right wing governments and its pals in the financial sector.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well I don't know where he cut taxes. He extended the Bush tax cuts by compromising with the house Republicans to extend the unemployment benefits. When you say "right wing", that can mean something different. A classical liberal is considered a conservative. Also, liberals are not innocent of wasteful spending and recklessness. Well whoever is at fault (I doubt it's one party), the fact is, there has to be drastic cuts or Greece will collapse.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm The Greeks already had drastic cuts, which is why their protests are so violent now, a second round of drastic cuts. In the Stimulus only $417 billion was actual new spending, the rest of it was aid to states and tax cuts. That is why DSK said that any new bailout needed to be a real bailout and not a loan. It is so bad there that Germans are now collecting taxes, but DSK was right in that cuts have only deeped the greek recession and they need a stimulus, NOW
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I defend public sector workers because I recognize the essential work they do, the fact that they do the work they do means I can sleep easier in my bed at night knowing my food supply is one of the safest in the world, my tap water won't kill me and does not contain parasites and that when I go to a beach, the water won't bleach my skin
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well no one supports no government. And of course no one wants dirty water. But sometimes government contracts some of these jobs out to private companies.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Typically when that happens costs balloon. A case in point is DOD, as a percentage of GDP and in real terms, we spend more now than we did during the Cold War. Dept. Justice and HS also experienced huge increases in budgets due to contracting. Obama has recently come forth saying that contractors should all be put on the Federal pay scales because it is ridiculous that a lot of contractors earn more than Feds or Cabinet Secretaries
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well of course we spend a lot of money on defense even after inflation. And yes contractors do make a lot of money. I'm not against cutting defense, it's certain things in it. As long as the government cuts other things like the department of education, commerce, laber, housing, energy, I'm okay with certain defense cuts as long as it doesn't cut soldier pay.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Labor, Commerce, Energy, HUD, Education are all comparatively cheap, cheaper and less well funded than they are by most of our competitors, and the cuts I have proposed here tonight would not affect soldiers pay or Federal pay either. Consider that $270 billion in cuts now, as well as the corresponding decrease in future interest payments and the inflation that goes into projected budget deficits would decrease the deficit by about 3.2 trillion over ten years.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm As for accountability in government, unions do make it more difficult to fire people, even incompetents outright, but what they do not stop and even tacitly encourage where incompetence is proven, is "encouragement to leave" In this way an extra 60,000 Feds are fired, beyond the 25,000 officially fired.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Like I said, for state and local governments alone costs would be $50 billion lower if they moved into a large index fund
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Government workers don't cost less and it doesn't mean their services are equal with the private sector. But that's not where most of the waste goes. For example, SS and medicare fraud. And in CA, we have high taxes and yet our unemployment is about %12, which is higher than the national average. Higher taxes does not lead to less unemployment. Businesses create jobs and if you burden them with regulations and taxes, they will hire less or move elsewhere.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Government workers do cost less, look at the Federal pay scale then compare it to salaries at Xe (Blackwater). Everyone likes to talk about waste like Solyndra, which was insignificant in the grand scheme of things but not the 295 billion in cost overruns at DoD. In Texas there are extremely low taxes and the greatest number of minimum wage jobs as a percentage of the workforce anywhere in the country. Nevada has much lower taxes than CA and a higher unemployment rate.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm Lastly regulations are needed to prevent crises like 2008, Canada had higher taxes and higher regulation than we did and they are doing just fine. Furthermore NY, Mass and MD have higher taxes than Texas and they have less unemployment than Texas. Also a lot of states like NV, AR, LA, receive more in Federal aid than they pay in taxes, whereas CA, subsidises those states.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Sure regulations are good. Bush tried to regulate it, but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said everything was okay. In fact, subprime mortgages were forced on the banks. And the SEC didn't regulate the transactions of wall street.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm No he did not and subprime were not forced on the banks. Either the banks are lying now or they were lying then. If it was bad they had a duty to their investors to say so, but they said it was all great, or they are lying now and it was not pushed on them, which mean they were also lying then, when they said it was great. Either way they were lying and like I said the SEC did not regulate, thus there were problems from lack of oversight.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Well it was coerced on banks from fines. If banks did not comply with giving out loans to those who are not qualified, they would get fined. There are other things also. It was to ensure bs fairness for low income and minorities, even if they have bad credit. So of course wall street took advantage of it and the lack of oversight which Barney Frank is in charge of, ignored it. If you do deep research, you'll find the truth. Also read the Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm There were no fines, I AM FROM THE FINANCE WORLD. I know. Banks had a very low threshold at which they had to give out loans to poor people, and they issued a number far, far above that threshold, obviously they thought they could get a gain from it, in the form of higher fees and the higher interest rates on these mortgages to squeeze people.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 No one is debating about the subprime mortgage loans. But you cannot exclude the big active role that government played in this. There was political pressure towards the banks from HUD and the CRA to give out more loans to the poor and minorities. I'm against these loans. But it's all about this political correctness that we have to have a certain percentage of people own homes. I'm saying if you researched it deeply, you will find out that government played an active role in this.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm You know I got to admit I get pretty tired of people telling me to research this deeply because I say the crash is primarily the fault of the private sector. I have done my homework and was around the creation of all this. All the Government did was not stop the banks the banks are the ones who willingly issued the mortgages to subprime lenders. HUD works in tandem to BUILD housing CRA was passed in 1977, by that logic we should have had a housing crash in 1984/85
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 I say this because I have also done my homework. HUD did push for more subprime mortgage loans. In 1996, HUD set a target that 42 percent of the mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie were to be financed with people of low incomes. That trend carried over. Well whatever, we are at an impasse as to who is primarily at fault. But we do agree that both are at fault.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I know about those, there is one huge difference between those loans and loans pushed by the private sector, those loans were extremely low interest, about 1% a year instead of the 9-15% of subprime and most of F&Fs loans "conforming loans" were for the middle class, in fact the subprime mortgages issued by F&F in the 90s have had a lower delinquency rate than ones issued by the private sector
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 But even the subprime mortgage loans in the last decade (0 down payment, high interest, ARM), was backed by F and F. Well the standards weren't as lax as the current loans and the middle class has a higher chance of not defaulting compare to the poor. Why would every financial institution give out loans if they knew they can't pay it back. That's poor economic judgment. Naturally it is wiser to give loans to whom they have good credit history to pay back the loans.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I know the point is they were not thinking RATIONALLY. The market being made up of human beings is fundamentally emotional, the slightest bit of bad news likely to send it up or down. The reason they did what they did is that by writing more mortgages they received more fees, which they could report as profit, and the huge interest payments they were getting. Unprecedented profits meant unprecedented bonuses and they assumed housing prices would go on rising or at least not fall.
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm All our major competitors have higher taxes and more regulation
Meade556 4 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm One has to ask what charter schools do not spend on, that public schools do. The reason Brown is going on about gays is that Democrats are afraid of being economically progressive, so they make up for it, by trying to be social liberals.
Meade556 4 months ago
@Meade556 Charter schools spend less because they aren't unionized and can get fired for poor performance. But also teachers can get rewarded with greater incentives if they do well unlike public schools where bad and good teachers are paid the same. CA is already economically progressive. And trying to be social liberals should not run in our schools. I mean look at prop 8. Most people supported it. The majority is against what Brown did.
jpzxcvbnm 4 months ago
Excuse me? Paid family leave for how long? Did I hear that correctly? Ten years?! TEN!?!?! Who the fuck do you people think you are? Do you really believe sitting through an interview and then being chosen to DO A JOB earns you the right to suck on some businesses tit for the rest of your life? Really though, who will pay for this and why do you think you deserve ten fucking years off of work, paid, no less.
bweazel 5 months ago
This is informationless. It's just a plug for her latest pet project.
RedDaVincy 5 months ago
Bottom line, this isn't "big think."
mrcolj 7 months ago 2
Totally just wasted my time by not even mentioning any of the real issues. Ask an economist this question instead of a union rep whom we have no reason to believe is qualified to comment...
mrcolj 7 months ago
Unions are a necessary evil in countries where there is no worker protection.
Unfortunately, they've gotten out of hand in some areas, and give people the idea that they have a right to a certain wage and benefits.
Easy solution to unions, companies contract out all work to organizations/companies/unions. Will pay X amount to the organization for labor force, your organization will pay the wages, benefits, medical, etc.
Unions as we know it will fade in that scenario.
wulfmanUNCP 7 months ago
You liberals think that in any way possible every person in america should get a pony and a rainbow not matter if they earned it or not. Guess what? Whos gona pay for all those ponys and rainbows? shit aint cheap.
SMWhit3out 8 months ago
@SMWhit3out They're like little children. You remember, when you were young you thought your city was the center of the world and nothing else really existed outside of it, apply that same child's logic to the economy, and you have liberals, but instead they're grown adults who utilize the economy. Why anyone would believe they deserve ten years off work. paid, and still deserve a job, I have no idea. It really makes me wonder if these people are clinically insane.
bweazel 5 months ago
unions have good and bad points. I think they were an amazing revolution for workers who suffered through the 30's and there was a great need to bring power to the people but unions, like corporations, are made up of humans. Humans always push the envelope and push it too far. Unions have turned into a kind of mafia, removing power from the people just as they accuse business of. Too many individuals are stripped of their rights and choices because of unions.
Auscann 8 months ago 2
@Auscann Unions have always been the mafia, they just became "legal". Go read some history. Yes, 88% of the country loses out on representation in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic, because unions have "rights" legislated to them at the expense of non unionized labor, expense of consumers and a free market. Sort of like a join "us or die" mentality, except, no ones joining, yet their benefits keep rolling in. It's getting ridiculous and it is definitely discrimination.
bweazel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Auscann Unions have always been the mafia, they just became "legal". Go read some history. Yes, 88% of the country loses out on representation in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic, because unions have "rights" legislated to them at the expense of non unionized labor, expense of consumers and a free market. Sort of like a join "us or die" mentality, except, no ones joining, yet their benefits keep rolling in. It's getting ridiculous and it is definitely discrimination.
bweazel 5 months ago
ars62287 is right!
raytenorio 8 months ago
Bullshit, you steal from the more common, over taxed, real American worker. Pure greed, you don't help anyone, ruin business.
ars62287 8 months ago
Think about it, the UAW has set the benchmark for middle class wages over the years people need to wise up and look past their own jealousy and fight for union jobs. Union busting is a way to divide and conquer (Put aside your anger over your own low wage and look at this from a different angle) BASHING and BUSTING UNIONS will not make your life better!!!!! It will drive down all wages!!!! Think about it!!!!
FluxCapacitor2008 9 months ago
@FluxCapacitor2008 You're right... we're so jealous that we don't have laws written for us to allow us to be spoiled bitches and hold our boss' business hostage. Only a brainwashed unionist would call that jealousy.
Unions started off as a good and necessary idea, now you all are no different from the greedy bastards whose money you're taking. Just a group of entitled bitches. Nothing to be jealous about there at all.
I do not respect any institution that survives solely by government decree
bweazel 5 months ago
@bweazel Ah like corporations, who need a Government charter to even exist, if they lost it they would have to liquidate everything
Meade556 4 months ago
People are so brainwashed by the fox news right wing mouth piece; they have people fighting to drive down union wages instead of fighting for better wages for themselves
FluxCapacitor2008 9 months ago
What a dumb bitch. Excuse my American language there. Forcing a business to give you more pay or benefits can in almost no way benefit the economy.
nottinmatterz2day 9 months ago
@nottinmatterz2day I completely agree
raytenorio 8 months ago
@nottinmatterz2day
Excuse me, who do you think buys stuff in American shops? Mexicans?
The buying power of the middle class has a really big part in the economy.
Nothing stops inflation totally. So if you dont have people representing you to get more in pay over time you will effectually LOSE buying power even when you have the same pay as the years before. Everyone knows that if you want to make a good and fair deal you need to have people that know what they are doing, aka union for workers.
Lobos222 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lobos222 Obviously you don't believe in the free market
nottinmatterz2day 8 months ago
@Lobos222 Deflation stops inflation. So what are you saying? Union members are too stupid to negotiate their own salary and benefits? Too lazy?
bweazel 5 months ago
Unions are great . Union workers buy more american products than ANYONE PERIOD!
carnypimp 1 year ago
can the laws be changed like in Wis.? Seems like unions are fighting to keep the laws we do have in place. We don't have to be in the union where I work. And we get the same benefits that the dues paying members do.
smoke2164 1 year ago
@smoke2164 Thats called an "Open Union" I'm personally opposed to them because they end up weakening those that bargain on your behalf. So in other-words some would call that reaping the fruit of another's labor. I'm not saying you're intentionally dodging paying in or leeching. Just saying how it functions in short. Some people feel like unions are to protect the lazy, which unfortunately in some cases they do, but they also forget the things that Unions help establish, like Workplace safety
phantomkitsunezero 11 months ago
Unions are parasites that protect and encourage mediocrity instead of meritocracy, and impede true progress and innovation , which is what really lifts all workers salaries.
toddsaunders456 1 year ago
@toddsaunders456 It only lifted the educated idiots salaries. The avergage labor worker loses without the union they get fired because the employer knows the illegals will show up to work everyday for minimum wage.
carnypimp 1 year ago
@toddsaunders456 And I suppose all those people that suffered from terrible work conditions and perminant disability would be inclined to agree with you 100%, if only we could have that 70 hour work week back with child labor and no safety regulations only then can we progress to our true glory! Crack open a history book and look into labor movements. Middle class was built on Unions, I just feel more need to hold more responsibility for their members like some Unions do.
phantomkitsunezero 11 months ago
@phantomkitsunezero hence crack-head in the past . Just because it was a good idea back then , doesn't mean they are good now. You sound like a stupid f$ing greedy uneducated moron.Talking of History books. Put down the communist manifesto and actually read a book . People were in the past not dumbass drones like yourself.People realized nothing comes for free. I bet you can't change your own tire. I bet you can't make change.I bet you can't read the sign at the gas pump to not use your cell .DA
NARDDB 11 months ago
@NARDDB I wish I was a greedy moron, I would be a supervisor today, but my self given morals are against some of the current practices that they are told to carry out. A: I never read the Communist Manifesto, B: I changed 4 tired just this last month. C: Change starts at the roots in any tree D: I don't own a cell phone so those signs are irrelevant to me. Now back in context, a Union was meant to promote professionalism and safety, unfortunately like with many, corruption tarnish anything.
phantomkitsunezero 11 months ago
@phantomkitsunezero well dude , the long hair doesn't fool anyone.and unions now are not under the same goal as then. now they are corrupted by the leaders who are just as powerful if not more powerful than the company's they cry about. and your last sentence is right the UNIONS ARE JUST AS CORRUPT!!!UNIONS WANT MORE MONEY FOR LESS SKILL!!! DROOL ON YOUR SKROOL DESK ? DON'T WORRY WE GET YOU IN A UNION A MAKE MORE THAN YOUR WORTH!!! CORRUPTION IS IN EVERY CLASS YOU CAN THINK OF BUT'S STILL CORUPT
NARDDB 10 months ago