RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

I was so proud of the Republican Senators that finally stood up, and listened to the Will of The People, as well as some of the brightest economists. Yesterday, the White House (the Bush Administration) took a U turn from their earlier position that they did not agree with a bailout.

http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D952KF5G0.html

I have a problem with a "Car Czar", we live in the United States, a Republic, we don't have Czar's, especially appointed by a President that also appointed a Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, who may be the worst Treasury Secretary in history.

Bush is trying to avoid a "disorderly" bankruptcy???

I will backtrack on my belief that Pres. Bush is enabling the push into Socialism if what I heard on Fox News is correct. Paulson does not want to use the TARP Funds for the auto makers unless the Unions are willing to accept the Corker recommended concessions for UAW workers.

The reason I say that hindsight is 20/20 vision only for some, is apparently the Bankruptcy Petition filed by United Airlines back in about 2003 should be a good lesson for some to have learned. They emerged from bankruptcy in 2006, and are still going strong. The unions were a big part of the problems then, as they are now for the Auto Makers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183478,00.html

In particular, GM is United Airlines, just as Gettlefinger is Frederick Dubinsky/Roger Hall. The following linked article by Robert J. Boser, Editor in Chief of Airline Safety.com could have been written today, just changing the name from United Airlines to General Motors. The similarities are incredible.

"Unions do not create and protect jobs; they destroy them."

http://www.airlinesafety.com/Unions/LaborCostsStupid.htm

Update as of 12/18/08

House and Senate Republicans send President letters asking him not to use TARP funds to bailout the Big 3. They have pointed out that to use the TARP funds, which were authorized by Congress, are not within his authority to use, it would be unconstitutional.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/republicans_auto_bailout/2008/12/1...

Chrysler and GM have restarted talks concerning a possible merger. In the meantime Chrysler and Ford are extending their normal 2 week close down to about a month. Even though they will not be producing anything in that time period the workers will still receive their unemployment benefits in addition to the supplemental unemployment benefits paid by the automakers. The supplemental pays the difference between the state unemployment benefit and brings each worker up to 90% of their normal pay rate.

http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D9552A5G1.html

It appears that the UAW still has no plans for further concessions from their workers. The story about the UAW Golfcourse doesn't help to convince many that they are concerned with the Big 3 rather than with their own juicy perks.

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/the_uaws_gorgeous_golf_cour...


12/23/08

As much as the majority was against the Auto Bailouts, President Bush did go against the Senate who failed to pass the Bail Out Legislation. He did however include concession requirements by the UAW in his plan. Not an hour after Bush announced his Bailout plan, Gettelfinger, UAW President, made public statements that the "auto workers were unfairly targeted" , and that he will wait for the Obama Administration to remove those requirements. For sake of civility, thanks Ron, you Socialist Ingrate, for the thanks us taxpayers are getting from you. But, what else could one expect from an Obama elector, Card Check promoter and Nationalized Healthcare advocate.

The American taxpayers are the ones who have been unfairly targeted. There are not many that don't believe that the Bailout monies have bailed out the UAW, not the Big 3. The 3 million auto workers still have their jobs, and for that they should be grateful. The unemployed workers of this country don't have the luxury of knowing they still have a paycheck coming in whatever amount, let alone the more than adequate paychecks received by these union workers, not including their benefits.

Wiki Gettelfinger- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Gettelfinger

Obama and Big Labor-

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/28/obama-card-check-oped-cx_sd_1029da...

Here is an organization that we all need to get behind and support financially and otherwise, they are one of our only hopes to stop the Card Check legislation that Obama and the Liberals will try their best to pass-

http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/gettelfinger

Views: 22

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I find the numbers so staggering that the whole subject is intimidating. I'm in favor of the companies going Chapter 11. Not only is the bailout socialism, but it's not going to work and it's throwing good money after bad because these companies have inherent problems they're not committed to fixing. Thanks for the posting, Sandy.
This job would be solved if every state was a right to work state. States like Michigan where you can be forced to join the union whether you want to or not are getting their just desserts. I once worked at UPS in Massachusetts. You didn't have to join the teamsters but you HAD to pay the union dues. It's insane.

You are right to find the numbers daunting Deborah. We are in the process of doubling a debt load that was already out of control and took 50 years to compile. Only were doubling it in one year and thats before nationalizing healthcare.
Deborah- You are far too cool, and you know what I mean. Thanks!

Deborah Munoz said:
I find the numbers so staggering that the whole subject is intimidating. I'm in favor of the companies going Chapter 11. Not only is the bailout socialism, but it's not going to work and it's throwing good money after bad because these companies have inherent problems they're not committed to fixing. Thanks for the posting, Sandy.
Mark- Do you think the UAW is holding out for the new Liberal Admin. to nationalize the healthcare industry, and that would take alot of expense off the books of the Auto Makers? Latest I heard today was that the current admin. will do something just to get them to the next admin.

Mark Collins said:
This job would be solved if every state was a right to work state. States like Michigan where you can be forced to join the union whether you want to or not are getting their just desserts. I once worked at UPS in Massachusetts. You didn't have to join the teamsters but you HAD to pay the union dues. It's insane.

You are right to find the numbers daunting Deborah. We are in the process of doubling a debt load that was already out of control and took 50 years to compile. Only were doubling it in one year and thats before nationalizing healthcare.
What is the next number after trillion. I really don't know, do you?

Deborah Munoz said:
I find the numbers so staggering that the whole subject is intimidating. I'm in favor of the companies going Chapter 11. Not only is the bailout socialism, but it's not going to work and it's throwing good money after bad because these companies have inherent problems they're not committed to fixing. Thanks for the posting, Sandy.
million: six zeroes
billion: nine zeroes
trillion: twelve zeroes
quadrillion: fifteen zeroes
quintillion: eighteen zeroes
sextillion: twenty-one zeroes
septillion: twenty-four zeroes
octillion: twenty-seven zeroes
novillion: thirty zeroes
decillion: thirty-three zeroes
undecillion: thirty-six zeroes
duodecillion: thirty-nine zeroes
tredecillion: forty-two zeroes
quattuordecillion: forty-five zeroes
quindecillion: forty-eight zeroes
sexdecillion: fifty-one zeroes
septendecillion: fifty-four zeroes
octodecillion: fifty-seven zeroes
novemdecillion: sixty zeroes
vigintillion: sixty-three zeroes
My father-in-law, who is a conservative, believes that we should bailout out the auto industry because of their history of helping our nation win major wars via their assembly lines. I could almost support that theory if I actually believed we were headed for some major conflict with Russia or China, however that is not going to happen. He also despises the term bailout, because as he says...it's a loan, not a bailout. Bailout implies that your giving it to them with no return on investment, which I could agree with as well, if there was some guarantee that the US Auto industry would pull through this tough time. As it stands right now the only American company that looks to pull through this time is Ford, and that is only because of the skill of their CEO. As he defines it he had a revolutionary idea; make cars people want, don't make more then you sell, and liquidate assets that are not bringing in returns on investment. That is what GM and Chrysler should have been doing, but they chose to continue down the same failed path.

So what is the best option. I would love to say go out and support a bailout of the auto industry because there are a large number of workers that will lose their jobs if this market crumbles, but I personally can't support a bailout as long as the American automakers are being hamstrung by the UAW. I applaud the effort of any Union to support it's workers, and ensure they make a fair wage. The American automaker deserves a fair wage because they embody the industrial spirit of America, but lets be honest, does someone on an assembly line deserve to make 78 dollars an hour? No one wants to say that because it's political suicide, but how does the American auto industry expect to remain competitive with foreign plants if they are paying their employees almost twice as much as other non-union facilities.

It's simple economics people. GM shells out 78 dollars an hour, while Toyota shells out 38 an hour in a non-union plant. Last year Toyota made something like 35 billion dollars, while GM lost 65 billion...even though the both sold the same number of cars. How does that happen? It happens with you have the unions squeezing every drop out of the automakers that employ them. How many of you here would pay employee's even if they were not working? I'm guessing not many, but that is what the American auto industry must do. Seriously sit back a second and take that in. Even if they are not producing cars the company must pay them because of contracts with the UAW. How many other businesses would be able to survive if they were forced to operate under those conditions....I am guessing not many.

Meanwhile you have the UAW saying that it won't budge on contracts to help save the very companies that have kept them employed for so many years. This is a group that would rather see its employees get zero dollars then restructure for 50 dollars. I am not saying it is fair, but for God sake, why wouldn't you try and help save jobs. Maybe offer 50 an hour plus some additional stock options for employees. Clearly they would not see any gains in the short term, but it could motivate the people to produce even better products that would make the companies more lucrative, and in turn make the employees stock rise.

Without question the Union believes the democrats are going to bail them out because the Unions gave the Dems a ton of money for their campaigns, and they will expect a return on their investments. I just hope we can get our house in order and philibuster any of these attempts in the future.
Don't forget that due to those unions, we currently have GM in a position of paying out 4 people's full medical and retirement benefits for every ACTIVE employee that they have.


Will said:
My father-in-law, who is a conservative, believes that we should bailout out the auto industry because of their history of helping our nation win major wars via their assembly lines. I could almost support that theory if I actually believed we were headed for some major conflict with Russia or China, however that is not going to happen. He also despises the term bailout, because as he says...it's a loan, not a bailout. Bailout implies that your giving it to them with no return on investment, which I could agree with as well, if there was some guarantee that the US Auto industry would pull through this tough time. As it stands right now the only American company that looks to pull through this time is Ford, and that is only because of the skill of their CEO. As he defines it he had a revolutionary idea; make cars people want, don't make more then you sell, and liquidate assets that are not bringing in returns on investment. That is what GM and Chrysler should have been doing, but they chose to continue down the same failed path.

So what is the best option. I would love to say go out and support a bailout of the auto industry because there are a large number of workers that will lose their jobs if this market crumbles, but I personally can't support a bailout as long as the American automakers are being hamstrung by the UAW. I applaud the effort of any Union to support it's workers, and ensure they make a fair wage. The American automaker deserves a fair wage because they embody the industrial spirit of America, but lets be honest, does someone on an assembly line deserve to make 78 dollars an hour? No one wants to say that because it's political suicide, but how does the American auto industry expect to remain competitive with foreign plants if they are paying their employees almost twice as much as other non-union facilities.

It's simple economics people. GM shells out 78 dollars an hour, while Toyota shells out 38 an hour in a non-union plant. Last year Toyota made something like 35 billion dollars, while GM lost 65 billion...even though the both sold the same number of cars. How does that happen? It happens with you have the unions squeezing every drop out of the automakers that employ them. How many of you here would pay employee's even if they were not working? I'm guessing not many, but that is what the American auto industry must do. Seriously sit back a second and take that in. Even if they are not producing cars the company must pay them because of contracts with the UAW. How many other businesses would be able to survive if they were forced to operate under those conditions....I am guessing not many.

Meanwhile you have the UAW saying that it won't budge on contracts to help save the very companies that have kept them employed for so many years. This is a group that would rather see its employees get zero dollars then restructure for 50 dollars. I am not saying it is fair, but for God sake, why wouldn't you try and help save jobs. Maybe offer 50 an hour plus some additional stock options for employees. Clearly they would not see any gains in the short term, but it could motivate the people to produce even better products that would make the companies more lucrative, and in turn make the employees stock rise.

Without question the Union believes the democrats are going to bail them out because the Unions gave the Dems a ton of money for their campaigns, and they will expect a return on their investments. I just hope we can get our house in order and philibuster any of these attempts in the future.
Very true. If the gov't were smart they would see this as a warning of what may lay ahead with the collapse of social security.

The Bulletproof Monk said:
Don't forget that due to those unions, we currently have GM in a position of paying out 4 people's full medical and retirement benefits for every ACTIVE employee that they have.


Will said:
My father-in-law, who is a conservative, believes that we should bailout out the auto industry because of their history of helping our nation win major wars via their assembly lines. I could almost support that theory if I actually believed we were headed for some major conflict with Russia or China, however that is not going to happen. He also despises the term bailout, because as he says...it's a loan, not a bailout. Bailout implies that your giving it to them with no return on investment, which I could agree with as well, if there was some guarantee that the US Auto industry would pull through this tough time. As it stands right now the only American company that looks to pull through this time is Ford, and that is only because of the skill of their CEO. As he defines it he had a revolutionary idea; make cars people want, don't make more then you sell, and liquidate assets that are not bringing in returns on investment. That is what GM and Chrysler should have been doing, but they chose to continue down the same failed path.

So what is the best option. I would love to say go out and support a bailout of the auto industry because there are a large number of workers that will lose their jobs if this market crumbles, but I personally can't support a bailout as long as the American automakers are being hamstrung by the UAW. I applaud the effort of any Union to support it's workers, and ensure they make a fair wage. The American automaker deserves a fair wage because they embody the industrial spirit of America, but lets be honest, does someone on an assembly line deserve to make 78 dollars an hour? No one wants to say that because it's political suicide, but how does the American auto industry expect to remain competitive with foreign plants if they are paying their employees almost twice as much as other non-union facilities.

It's simple economics people. GM shells out 78 dollars an hour, while Toyota shells out 38 an hour in a non-union plant. Last year Toyota made something like 35 billion dollars, while GM lost 65 billion...even though the both sold the same number of cars. How does that happen? It happens with you have the unions squeezing every drop out of the automakers that employ them. How many of you here would pay employee's even if they were not working? I'm guessing not many, but that is what the American auto industry must do. Seriously sit back a second and take that in. Even if they are not producing cars the company must pay them because of contracts with the UAW. How many other businesses would be able to survive if they were forced to operate under those conditions....I am guessing not many.

Meanwhile you have the UAW saying that it won't budge on contracts to help save the very companies that have kept them employed for so many years. This is a group that would rather see its employees get zero dollars then restructure for 50 dollars. I am not saying it is fair, but for God sake, why wouldn't you try and help save jobs. Maybe offer 50 an hour plus some additional stock options for employees. Clearly they would not see any gains in the short term, but it could motivate the people to produce even better products that would make the companies more lucrative, and in turn make the employees stock rise.

Without question the Union believes the democrats are going to bail them out because the Unions gave the Dems a ton of money for their campaigns, and they will expect a return on their investments. I just hope we can get our house in order and philibuster any of these attempts in the future.
Take a look at this article. Maybe this will help explain why Bush was so eager to illegally appropriate TARP funds to Chrysler.
Great article Brad- I read at least a few days ago that Chrysler really had no reason to be bailed out as Cerebrus (sp) was flush with billions, and could have helped Chrysler if they wanted to. When you have the first bailout because someone, anyone, is to big to fail, you will surely have a long line that wants to feed at the trough of the Feds. In addition, there is another story today that the bailed out Wall St. firms execs actually got $1.6 billion of the mother of all bailouts, in exec. pay, bonuses and the like. Does anyone know exactly what Paulson did with the first $350 billion? They only have the $17.9 billion left for the Big 3. This is much more than kick the can down the road, it is Socialism ala Republican President style.

Sorry, I did not mean to break Reagans 11th commandment- Thou shalt not speak bad about any Republicans. It was a moment of uncontrolled insanity!
Princeton University economist Uwe Reinhardt once quipped that GM had become a giant social-insurance program that just happened to sell a few cars on the side.

That’s because GM has 96,000 active workers and 1,000,000 retirees and widows all receiving lifetime incomes and health care benefits. Recently, GM announced it would idle some assembly lines. You may have missed the news that idled GM workers will continue to receive 95% of their wages during this shut down. If permanently laid off, UAW workers enter the “job bank” where they will continue to be paid full wages, without working, for four years.

Until recently, Americans had little reason to care about GM’s labor agreement with the UAW. That, of course, was before the Federal Government decided to give GM $17.4 billion, for starters, under the threat that if GM lost this money it would have to pay it back. It’s not clear how this math works but that’s the deal. So, now auto workers in Alabama making $45 an hour in wages and benefits are supporting auto workers in Michigan who make $75 an hour in wages and benefits. For that matter, cashiers at Wal-Mart who earn $7.50 an hour and every other taxpayer in the country regardless of how much or how little they earn is supporting UAW workers, retirees and the widows of UAW retirees. Most Americans have to settle for Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare, yet they are supporting generous pensions and health care benefits for UAW members. Americans used to work the first five months of the year for the government. That’s how long it used to take just to pay the annual tax bill. Now, after working for the government for five months, Americans will have to work for the UAW for a while before they begin to work for themselves and their families.

GM has been roundly criticized for “mismanagement”. Curiously, the same mismanagement produces profits for GM’s overseas operations.

Maybe GM shouldn’t have agreed to unsustainable union contracts. But, in 1935 FDR signed the Wagner Act which forced employers to recognize unions as the sole bargaining agent for workers. Since the government assured that there was no other source of labor, GM could either come to agreement with the UAW or stop building cars.

Then there is the charge that GM failed to move quickly enough to build fuel efficient cars that the American public wants to buy. But, there is no evidence for this assertion. The fact is that in the present economic environment Americans aren’t buying any cars, fuel efficient or not. Toyota is forecasting its first operating loss in 70 years. Any casual observer can see that the highways are filled with GM pickup trucks, SUVs and full sized cars. It would seem that Americans aren’t interested in buying tiny fuel efficient cars. Yet, that is exactly the kind of car that the Federal Government demands that GM spend billions to engineer, develop and build. GM makes a profit of between $500 and $1,500 on their full sized cars, pickups and SUVs and loses between $500 and $1,500 for every car they are forced to build to satisfy CAFÉ standards imposed by the government.

CAFÉ standards are, in part, the government’s response to previously high oil imports. A situation caused by the government’s 30 year ban on offshore and domestic oil drilling, obstruction of development of shale oil deposits and obstruction of nuclear and coal fired power plants. This energy policy is governed by environmental groups who, in spite of ten years of cooling temperatures, promote the notion that man-made global warming through CO2 emissions will destroy the planet. Newsflash: Global Warming is what happens between ice ages. CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant and it is the Sun that warms the Earth.

Now, whose mismanagement should we be concerned about?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service