Detroit 3 still dangling but caffeinated

Southern Republicans want to play politics with the auto union, meanwhile they're willing to give 100's of billions, no strings attached, to the white collar Wall Street crooks who have been running their business's like a casino.

The people of Michigan, Ohio and Pa etc will remember the actions of these idiot Republicans when the next election rolls around in 2012 and they will become an even smaller minority party.

These are the hypocrites who voted FOR the Wall Street Bailout, and then turned around and voted AGAINST the Big Three Rescue Bill and are running for re-election in 2010:

Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)

Burr, Richard (R-NC)

Coburn, Tom (R-OK)

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)

Gregg, Judd (R-NH)

Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)

McCain, John (R-AZ)

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)

Thune, John (R-SD)

* * * * *

Posted by: Change We Do Believe In | December 20, 2008 6:17 PM
.
I agree that the Senators you have listed did wrong. They should have voted against both the Wall Street bailout and the Big 3 bailout. That they did wrong by being herded into voting for the Wall Street Bailout, however, was no reason to repeat the mistake and vote for the Big 3 bailout too. If 30 years of profit motive couldn’t get the Big 3 to overcome their own deficiencies and begin to produce quality vehicles to compete with foreign manufacturers, an 11th hour bailout wasn’t going to do it for them. There was no good reason to throw good money after bad just because the Big 3 employ union workers. Making a fuss out of it because of the plight of the union workers is making the tail wag the dog. They were contemplating a bailout of the companies, and not the workers.
.
On a different note, I can’t understand why you think it will matter whether “[t]he people of Michigan, Ohio and Pa etc will remember the actions” of Senators from Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, or Utah. Most of them are from solidly red states, in which case their vote against the Big 3 bailout probably earned them brownie points at home. Furthermore, voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana don’t get to vote for or against the Senators you have listed. Those Senators only have to worry about the voters in their own states. It’s in the Constitution. Look it up.

I don't think that quote puts any confidence in the Big 3 to make a come-back. Sounds a little bit of a downer to me. I also think the wording is awkward, something just doesn't fit right. Maybe it would make more sense if we had the whole address.

I always thought that libs were against corporate welfare? I guess its OK when some of that corporate welfare triclkes down to the union brothers?

Those Senators only have to worry about the voters in their own states. It’s in the Constitution. Look it up.

Posted by: John W. | December 21, 2008 3:27 AM

It taints the whole party (Republican) and your party already stinks to high heaven.

* * * * *
Posted by: Change We Do Belive In | December 21, 2008 2:40 PM
.
Both parties stink to high heaven. Neither has supplied this country with adult leadership for a very long time. The November election did not change this fact. Because of this, we are in for some very interesting times in the near future.
.
I might add that "tainting"- as you call it - only counts if it changes who gets elected. It's going to take a lot more than letting down the Big 3 in some of those red states to get people to vote differently. They liked that vote. So, I ask again: Why is it significant that people from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Indiana “remember” the vote of red-state politician?

The UAW has been given the opportunity of a generation to explain to the American people the real problem with compensation in our society today: the immoral differential between the exorbitant average pay of a CEO of an S&P 500 company, and the pay of an average worker and the modern Republican party who has kowtowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of the average blue collar working American all along the way.

The UAW has been given the opportunity of a generation to explain to the American people the real problem with compensation in our society today: the immoral differential between the exorbitant average pay of a CEO of an S&P 500 company, and the pay of an average worker.

In 1950, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO was less than 30 times that of an average U.S. worker; by 1980, prior to the "Reagan Revolution, the average pay of the S&P 500 CEO was approximately 50 times higher than that of an average U.S worker. But by 2007, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO had soared to more than 350 times as much as that of an average U.S. worker.

This is both immoral and unsustainable in a democracy. By way of comparison, in Europe, an average CEO only makes 22 times as much as an average worker, and in Japan, only 17 times as much.

If America wants to be competitive again, we need to reduce CEO pay to a level comparable to CEO pay in Europe and Japan. I know exactly how to accomplish this feat. The UAW should agree to immediately lower U.S. union worker pay to a level equal to the level paid by their non-union, non-American competitors. In return, auto CEO’s must agree to permanently lower their compensation to only 20 times that of an average union worker.

Once this has been accomplished, Congress must move to apply the same pay standards to AIG and all of the financial institutions that took one penny of taxpayer money from the TARP fund.

In 1950, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO was less than 30 times that of an average U.S. worker

1980, prior to the "Reagan Revolution, the average pay of the S&P 500 CEO was approximately 50 times higher than that of an average U.S worker.

By 2007, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO had soared to more than 350 times as much as that of an average U.S. worker.

In Europe, an average CEO only makes 22 times as much as an average worker,
and in Japan, only 17 times as much as the average worker.

The UAW should agree to immediately lower U.S. union worker pay to a level equal to the level paid by their non-union, non-American competitors. In return, auto CEO’s must agree to permanently lower their compensation to only 20 times that of an average union worker.

Once this has been accomplished, Congress must move to apply the same pay standards to AIG and all of the financial institutions that took one penny of taxpayer money from the TARP fund.

These points are just as easy to digest as the bs GOP talking point about tying UAW wages to Japanese/European companies is. And the basic argument is so conveniently portable for other companies being bailed out.

So, I ask again: Why is it significant that people from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Indiana “remember” the vote of red-state politician?

Posted by: John W. | December 21, 2008 5:53 PM

We will definitely remember when the Prez election comes around and thanks to this invention called the internet (you've heard of it?) we are going to work to get these southern Repugs booted from office in their states too. Thanks for the inspiration to keep fighting.

I live in Ohio and I have relatives who live here and you are wrong. The GOP is in the gutter and sinking bigtime here.

* * * * *
Posted by: Change We Do Believe In | December 22, 2008 1:51 AM
.
You still don’t get it. Those red-state politicians were doing the will of their respective constituencies. The people in those states wanted them to vote against the Big 3 bailout. In fact, many of them wanted them to vote against the Wall Street Bailout too. Internet or no internet, neither you nor anyone else is going to get the people in those red-states up in arms over the plight of union auto workers.
.
Furthermore, your reference to the next presidential election doesn’t answer the question I posed which was: Why will it matter whether people in the Northeast remember the actions of Senators from the South and West? I raised this question (for the third time now) because you noted that the named Senators are up for re-election in 2010. I simply don’t see how the vote is going to make any difference in any upcoming House or Senate race in any red-state where the vote against the bailout was viewed favorably by the majority. Those in the Northwest don’t get to vote in those elections.

To: roc:
.
You are clueless if you think that a change in executive pay is going to improve the competitiveness of any American car manufacturer. They can’t compete because they do not produce vehicles of the same quality as their foreign competitors. Changing executive compensation will not change the quality of their products; only vision, innovation and better engineering will do that.
.
You are equally clueless if you think the current pay disparity between management and labor is either immoral or unsustainable “in a democracy.” Democracy has nothing to do with the operations of a wholly private company. Management-level compensation is a matter directed to the discretion of corporate management - and not the popular vote. I might add that there is nothing inherently “immoral” in the disparity of pay unless one adheres to Marx’s theory of exploitation and “labor theory of value” - which have been debunked many years ago.