kpc655

this is what nvksed said... QUOTE (nvsked @ Oct 21 2009, 02:02 PM) * I run into a lot of Canadians traveling, and they all buy insurance before traveling into the US. They say they wouldn't risk coming into the US without insurance. Rat Bastard Insurance Companies

yes they should. if not better. they're not operating with government support.

read up, it's typically called "strike pay". there's nothing magical about it, in fact, i didn't mention magic. you did. so it would seem you are perpetuating a myth. the strike as a tool tilt the balance too far in favor of a coercive union. by locking out competition, they monopolize the labor supply (to ford in this case). that is bad for ford, ford investors, ford customers, other ford employees...basically everyone but the union. would be nice to see the monopoly busting mentality applied to unions.

canadian healthcare coverage is so bad that they have to go to the private market to get coverage while traveling out of the country? last thing we need is the government that gave us the post office, "too big too fail", fannie mae, freddie mac, medicare, medicaid, social security and all the other failed, bankrupt ideas, managing another one. besides which, the government doesn't have the money to pay for today's programs, let alone a massive new one. balance the budget, pay down the debt, then we can talk.

Ford is basically stuck with union labor. They have no right to "strike" if labor offers them "unfair" terms. They have to negotiate to even move a plant/product. it's become too one sided. When all employees at all shops can offer their services without joining the union, then it's a level playing field. but today..if you wanna work at a ford plant, you have to join the union. you know, for your own good. Ford is at a definite disadvantage in it's labor costs. Pattern bargaining works both ways and its time for ford to get similar terms to GM/chrysler. otherwise the union is exposed for what it is...an anti competition organization built on extortion.

Pattern bargaining is a two way street.

yeah, great solution

Ford should get the exact same terms as GM and Chrysler, that's how pattern bargaining works. Otherwise the uaw is showing favoritism and is demonstrating a real conflict of interest by offering superior terms to the companies which they have a stake in. Ford should then be able to walk away from the union.

YOU might be worth a nickel wage increase, but unlike mullaly, you are not willing to stand (or fall) on your own merits and work. nor are you willing to do your own wage negotiations. you require a union to do that..and therefore your pay is not based on your performance but rather the performance of every other employee. you can't have it both ways. you either stand on your own two feet and risk falling, or stand with a larger group and accept average compensation (at best)

nope

riiight

by taking ownership stakes, asking for government bailouts, lobbying government officials for support, by pursuing preferential production contracts etc. The uaw has a marketing arm...just like ford.

Product commitments? Does ford get sales commitments too? The UAW and ford make this the public's business.

i think someone must have slept through theirs.

.

you still don't get it...and demanding that i prove a negative is an excellent example of just how much you don't get it! the constitution must specifically ALLOW it for the government to do it. Show me where it's allowed? you can't..because it isn't. go back and read that again. powers not reserved for the feds are left to the people or states. http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2650 Someone who would know a great deal about what the Founders meant is Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." http://libertymaven.com/2009/06/16/dr-ron-...re-on-cnn/6133/ seems pretty obvious..would it help if i pasted in the text of the constitution? now if an amendment was passed adding this as a power...then it's possible. but that's not what's happening. you're wrong. and you're inability to comprehend that doesn't change it. contract law is irrelevant here because we are not talking about a contract.

i think you need to improve your reading comprehension. In no way does anything i posted (or the US constitution) grant the authority for universal healthcare. Every single piece of legislation written starts off with what power they are exercising. have you ever read a bill?

you can stop right there. the federal government can only do what it's allowed to do. i.e. powers that are specifically reserved for it via the constitution. All powers and authority not specifically reserved for the feds reverts to the people (or states). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text. i guess you really haven't read the constitution. that expains a lot.

i wish i could opt out of ssi. not yet...soon hopefully. i didn't mention schools..or police...or fire....why would you? come on...focus here. but thank you for further demonstrating that you have no understanding of the constitution, constitutionsl law, enumerated powers and government responsibility. lets turn this around...under what constitutionally authorized power will socialized medicine be offered?

Explain Medicare then...... i can't. there's no constitutional basis for it. but luckily the challenges are beginning to crop up. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered ever read the constitution?

from your link "The only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending. " what do you think keynesian policy's are..if not that? so you support another debt fueled bubble. at least be honest with yourself.

politics don't have any place in a serious economic discussion. Keynesians are nothing more than politicians masquerading as economists. besides, Feldstein is wrong. to assume that gov't spending (fueled by borrowing) can somehow replace a drop in private sector consumption and produce anything other then a bubble (at best) is naive. and wrong. consumers are getting their finances in line. they expect the government to do the same. it's not happening...that's destroying confidence and producing a long term outlook that's not filled with higher taxes, bigger government and lower living standards. re-inflating the bubble is not the answer.

of course it failed. you cannot "fix" the collapse of a debt fueled spending bubble by more debt fueled spending. the government does not posess the foresight, knowledge or tools to effectively manipulate the economy on such a large scale. The law of unintended consequences always wins. it was political. nothing more. and at that it has failed too.

right, so by that logic they should be opening more dealerships? more sales right? the number of dealerships is dictated by the cars sold to the public. it doesn't help ford to offer the same vehicle at a mercury dealership and again down the road at a ford dealership. that simply guarantee's it's sold for the lowest price. it doesn't double the amount of sales. kill it. it's a waste of resources.