Are Ford Employees Really Ford Enthusiast?

[akirby]

Again, each tax loophole is supported by an Army of Lobbyists that could influence just about anybody over time, much less a politician, who puts his/her finger up in air to see which way the _____ wind is blowing. Already, the housing industry is running national commercials as they sense Washington looking at mortgage interest tax loophole. If it becomes more than talk, watch the housing/mortgage lobbyists go into hyper gear. You can tell they are organizing an onslaught if needed already. Much easier said than done as far as implementation goes. I believe next to impossible. Basically empty rhetoric from politicians seeking to be elected to political office. Increasing taxes is far easier to do than attacking tax loopholes that are SACRED to many institutions like housing industry, big oil, charitable foundations, and on and on.

 

But that's exactly why we need to get a simpler tax code and get rid of the loopholes. Taxes are no longer being used just to fund necessary government services - they're being used and abused to satisfy personal and political and social agendas.

 

Pick a tax rate with a fixed percentage or range of percentages and that's what you pay - period.

[fordmantpw]

Apparently.

 

Here is my solution for that. We do away with traditional welfare handouts unless you have a legitimate disability that prevents you from doing any type of work. Instead, we replace it with guaranteed jobs. You must report to work 5 days a week for 8 hours per day. You must do whatever job is required in the county or city that day (picking up trash, painting, cutting grass, sorting recycling, etc.). If you refuse to work you don't get paid. If there is no work to be done you must stay at least 4 hours and take some kind of online training. Day care will be provided for single parents - no excuses. For this you get paid roughly $300/wk which should be slightly more than welfare but less than minimum wage. You could fund this with existing welfare dollars because most of those people - when forced to actually work for their money - will find a better paying job for the same amount of work. And for those who choose not to - the local government gets something out of them in return.

 

Sounds like a win/win in my book. Now let's hear the liberals tell us why that's not a good idea.

 

But it will put poor kids with no food out on the streets! At least, that's the liberals' excuse! I agree with you 100%!

[silvrsvt]

You must report to work 5 days a week for 8 hours per day. You must do whatever job is required in the county or city that day (picking up trash, painting, cutting grass, sorting recycling, etc.). If you refuse to work you don't get paid. If there is no work to be done you must stay at least 4 hours and take some kind of online training. Day care will be provided for single parents - no excuses. For this you get paid roughly $300/wk which should be slightly more than welfare but less than minimum wage. You could fund this with existing welfare dollars because most of those people - when forced to actually work for their money - will find a better paying job for the same amount of work. And for those who choose not to - the local government gets something out of them in return.

 

The Town union workers who do that stuff already wouldn't like that one bit!

 

 

 

 

[FordBuyer]

Well, I voted today and I was the only soul there. On the ballot was city council and school board. Plymouth-Canton is like third largest school district in MI with major changes going on with so many less education dollars coming from state. Funny how if school board makes an unpopular decision, the board meeting room is overflowing with parents whining and bitching, but today with chance to vote those members in or out not a fricking peep. And we wonder why government in general is so bad? I wonder sometimes if we even deserve to be a democracy anymore. Seems to me democracy takes active participation as in making your voice heard no matter how small. The way it's going surprised more corrupt leaders don't slip through the cracks and create their mayhem on society.

[BrewfanGRB]

No, the reason you wouldn't want to expand is because it will cost you more to do it now than it would if there were better incentives to do so. Simple as that. Would you rather have to spend half a million dollars to incrase production or 350 grand?

 

So now, corporations need incentives? Sounds like corporate welfare to me.

 

I'm only speaking directly to the contention that the corporate tax inhibits expansion or development. I don't believe you've addressed this. Specifically: How would cutting the corporate tax rate change the COST of the expansion? Sure, it may improve ROI to better justify the expansion. But it leads to no additional capital expense to the corporation. Maybe, reducing the corporate tax rate pushes the ultimate ROI to a level where the company can justify that capital expense. But for a company that can expand and still meet ROI--I can't believe any company would not do so solely due to the tax rate.

 

I have acknowledged that regulations can add cost and burden to corporations. But it's a slippery slope. It's easy for a business to say "get rid of all those stupid clean air and water regulations and I'll hire eleventy billion people", but that's not government's role. Someone has to be the grown up and prevent those abuses. The difficult process is deciding "Here's where regulation went too far--there's either no benefit to it all or it's benefit isn't substantial enough to justify its cost". But how do you decide where that line is?

[FordBuyer]

So now, corporations need incentives? Sounds like corporate welfare to me.

 

I'm only speaking directly to the contention that the corporate tax inhibits expansion or development. I don't believe you've addressed this. Specifically: How would cutting the corporate tax rate change the COST of the expansion? Sure, it may improve ROI to better justify the expansion. But it leads to no additional capital expense to the corporation. Maybe, reducing the corporate tax rate pushes the ultimate ROI to a level where the company can justify that capital expense. But for a company that can expand and still meet ROI--I can't believe any company would not do so solely due to the tax rate.

 

I have acknowledged that regulations can add cost and burden to corporations. But it's a slippery slope. It's easy for a business to say "get rid of all those stupid clean air and water regulations and I'll hire eleventy billion people", but that's not government's role. Someone has to be the grown up and prevent those abuses. The difficult process is deciding "Here's where regulation went too far--there's either no benefit to it all or it's benefit isn't substantial enough to justify its cost". But how do you decide where that line is?

 

If regs are so burdensome and cost so much, how come corporations beat earnings estimates quarter after quarter year after year and only time market goes up is around earnings season and then back down again? How many times has it been said that major corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars? I dont' think they need any more help. Main street is the one hurting. Corporations are paying out big dividends and buying back stock, but not doing anything else with it as in hiring more people or building facilities in U.S. except for a few. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are about the only ones about to hire thousands of new workers and spread some wealth around main street in large signing and profit sharing bonuses.

[Biker16]

Payroll taxes come back to the payer eventually. Income tax does not.

 

please explain.

[akirby]

please explain.

 

You pay into Social Security. When you get older or disabled you draw Social Security. Some people get back more than they put in, some less. But you get at least something back.

 

Income tax goes to Congress, Military protection, Interstates, etc. We don't get any of that money back.

[Noah Harbinger]

Or to say it differently, payroll taxes fund entitlement spending - what you pay in payroll taxes now now earns you an entitlement to future benefits that belong directly to you. When you get that annual social security statement, it's listing the entitlements you have earned.

 

Income taxes go into the general fund, which is spent on things that generally benefit us in common or indirectly.

 

I wouldn't say "we don't get any of that money back" because we continuously benefit from the investments of previous generations in infrastructure, technology, and education.

[akirby]

Or to say it differently, payroll taxes fund entitlement spending - what you pay in payroll taxes now now earns you an entitlement to future benefits that belong directly to you. When you get that annual social security statement, it's listing the entitlements you have earned.

 

Income taxes go into the general fund, which is spent on things that generally benefit us in common or indirectly.

 

I wouldn't say "we don't get any of that money back" because we continuously benefit from the investments of previous generations in infrastructure, technology, and education.

 

It's the difference between putting money in a savings account versus using it to buy a house or a car or wasting it on a drunken weekend in Las Vegas.

[Biker16]

That's ok - I change my own tires, rain or shine.

 

I feel sorry for people who deserve it. People who are in temporary circumstances (and therefore need temporary assistance). People who are TRULY disabled and can't work.

 

Perhaps I'm more jaded because I grew up in a small rural town with a large welfare population. There were plenty of jobs available - especially farm work. Yet there were families with multiple generations of welfare recipients living in subsidized housing projects sitting on their butts collecting checks. Girls having kids out of wedlock just to get more money in their checks. I've witnessed this abuse first hand. I've also witnessed many who came from that environment who got out and made a nice living for themselves.

 

I worked my way through college with NO help from my parents. They simply didn't have any money. I bought my own car, paid my own way through school with student loans. I got married while in college - we both worked at entry level jobs that were either at or very close to minimum wage. We both had vehicles and a nice apartment and a few luxuries here and there but not much.

 

My son just graduated from college. He makes $10/hour working at Starbucks full time since he was 17. For the last 3 years he's lived in an apartment and paid his own rent, utilities and expenses. His car is paid for and he has roommates to defray expenses. So do his roommates.

 

So don't tell me you can't get by nicely on minimum wage because I've done it myself and so has my son (although he had a little more help than I did) and his friends.

 

So no, I don't feel sorry for people who show no initiative to get better paying jobs or who sit on their butts and get government checks when they could be working. You say Earned Income Credits are a carrot to get people to work instead of being on welfare. Limit welfare or change it so they still have to do work for less than minimum wage and watch how many go out and get real jobs.

 

The statistics just don't back up your anecdotal evidence. welfare was reformed in the 90s to prevent what you see from happening.

 

We subsides to corporate interest are still 3-4 time that amount spent on welfare. period. it seems that you "feel" the poor are not doing their Fair Share. What you forgot is that this wonderful invention called capitalist is designed to create winner and losers, in order for the system to work the gains of the winners must be used to offset to losses of the losers, because system works best when there is a broad pool of people willing to reignite or compete after they have lost. not to simply allow the winners to continue to win and losers to continue to lose.

 

the statstics of children growing up in poverty, and the what happens when they gorw up, are horrifiying, the short term view of make them do more ignores the fact that the children are almost gauraunteed to become dependent on the state. forget welfare what about after school work study programs for at risk teens? or reforming School funding to make it fairer?

 

Kids going to urban Schools actually get dumber not smarter, the IQ of these kids drop because their schools are so bad.

 

WE are easily distracted by numbers that give half truths. It costs 17,000 per year to incarcerate an adult, average Cost per year for a State College education is <$12,000 per year.

 

we are allowing our feelings influence our better judgement, make the investments in reducing poverty or pay the very high price later.

 

So the lazy should get a reprieve from taxes so they can mooch off the rest of us?

 

No, the inverse is true, the EIC or Reverse income tax allows people to work whom may not have the incentive to work.

 

hypothitically it adds to the income of people at or near poverty.

 

the reality is that taxes are a disincentive to work.

the poverty line in the US for a Single person is $11,388

 

keep in minds %16 or 49 million Americans live below that line.

 

With the EIC or reverse income tax that boosts their income to ~$15,000 Estimated. per year. if you wanted to tax them at even at a 1% rate it would reduce their income.

The welfare system is a all or nothing system, if you work you get no assistance, there is a threshold where the costs of working (Transportation, etc) are higher than the costs of not working. you hear similar stories when the price of gas rises and people have to decide if it is worth the cost of working.

 

the Reverse income tax, creates an incentive to work, because if you don't work you do not get the credit, (different form the Child tax credit.) it is substitute for Welfare that is far cheaper to administer, no beuacracy to set up or oversee, economists love it, it is simple and effective. remember the poor 49 million spend generally all of their income the money they gain in the EIC plus the money they earn working goes right back into the local economy. [/b]

 

money tends to accumulate and stagnate at the top while it circulates and grows at the bottom.

 

It worked in Brazil

 

No, the reason you wouldn't want to expand is because it will cost you more to do it now than it would if there were better incentives to do so. Simple as that. Would you rather have to spend half a million dollars to incrase production or 350 grand? If these businesses feel that they are going to get better terms down the road to expand then, they are simply going to sit on their money, and that's exactly what they are doing. Profits on Wall Street have been pretty decent across the board for the past year or so, yet nobody is hiring or trying to expand their business right now. Why is that?

 

I don't know about that, I feel if businesses felt that the economy is growing at a stable rate and the consumer is more confident. they will begin to hire regardless of what incentives are available to them.

 

In a different time It would be easier for entrepreneurs to take advantage of market conditions but with so much money at the top of the market, they seem to hit a wall, where they cannot compete, where the reserves of the large companies simply allows them build monopoly power and squeeze them out.

 

Apparently.

 

Here is my solution for that. We do away with traditional welfare handouts unless you have a legitimate disability that prevents you from doing any type of work. Instead, we replace it with guaranteed jobs. You must report to work 5 days a week for 8 hours per day. You must do whatever job is required in the county or city that day (picking up trash, painting, cutting grass, sorting recycling, etc.). If you refuse to work you don't get paid. If there is no work to be done you must stay at least 4 hours and take some kind of online training. Day care will be provided for single parents - no excuses. For this you get paid roughly $300/wk which should be slightly more than welfare but less than minimum wage. You could fund this with existing welfare dollars because most of those people - when forced to actually work for their money - will find a better paying job for the same amount of work. And for those who choose not to - the local government gets something out of them in return.

 

Sounds like a win/win in my book. Now let's hear the liberals tell us why that's not a good idea.

 

The average welfare benefit in 2006 was $372 per month

 

under your plan overall Welafare spending would increase dramatically, to pay for the extra administration cost and you would have to up the benefit payments to compensate for transportation costs of getting those people to work.

 

Any fiscal conservative has to understand that it is more cost effective to simply send a check, than to develop punitive measures to compel work. in addition by creating a quasi-slave labor force you will put taxpayers out of work.

 

If the idea is to aid the poor, why make it more complex than it has to be.

 

But it will put poor kids with no food out on the streets! At least, that's the liberals' excuse! I agree with you 100%!

 

do you care?

remember the 60s

[Noah Harbinger]

It's the difference between putting money in a savings account versus using it to buy a house or a car or wasting it on a drunken weekend in Las Vegas.

 

Education is "a drunken weekend in Las Vegas"? Transportation infrastructure? The NIH and NSF? The FDA? DOE & its National Laboratories?

 

You honestly don't see the value in any of those to the long-term success of our economy?

 

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me that you come from a Fortune 50 company. Let me guess: It's one that rose to prominence at least 40 years ago, in a then-new industry, but nowadays pays a steady dividend and only grows by cutting costs, closing operations, M&A, and financial operations?

[BrewfanGRB]

It's the difference between putting money in a savings account versus using it to buy a house or a car or wasting it on a drunken weekend in Las Vegas.

 

Interesting that you correlate the work government does that benefits society with a drunken weekend in Las Vegas. I'd love all you fiscal conservatives to just once contemplate how your day to day life is affected by this alleged wasted money. You're perfectly willing to defend and keep massive spending that benefits YOU, but God forbid someone else benefits, they're lazy losers who deserve nothing. Is there waste? Of course. Useless or outdated programs? Absolutely. Would eliminating every "silly, stupid, out or useless" program do anything to the budget. Hardly. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate them...but any assertion that cleaning up the budget that way solves fiscal problems is sound-bite, lazy thinking.

 

Despite all your self-righteous indignation about how you didn't have parents to pay for your college education and your self-promotion about how you worked through college, you're able to conveniently overlook that millions of people besides yourself do that every year. I did it. Woop dee fucking doo. Give yourself a medal.

 

The point is: Welfare as you characterize it essentially no longer exists. For the most part it's food stamps. I LOVE your operating theory that kids, unfortunately born to lazy, drug-addicted parents are shit out of luck. Get a damn job, kid. No one's asserting the country bankrupt itself with benefits Europe-style. As for federal income taxes, it's bewildering to me that you believe a person making $13000 a year, who essentially spends every dollar of their income--only because they must to sustain themselves, should have to pay federal income tax. To what end? To teach them, what? "Ha ha, loser--if only you were smarter, you'd have a better job and make more money. But, you're a moron, so pay taxes like the rest of us." Has it occurred to you, for a fraction of a second that not every person in a low-wage job is there because they're lazy?

 

You may have noticed not everyone is a genius--not even the best educational system in the world can make someone who genetically isn't smart into a genius. But they're there working, earning a living. Who are you to criticize that? Who are you to burden what will likely be a lifetime of struggle with additional tax?

 

Edit: Cleaned up to minimize making it personal. Good conversation I'd like to stay open.

Edited November 9, 2011 by BrewfanGRB

[NickF1011]

So now, corporations need incentives? Sounds like corporate welfare to me.

 

II wasn't referring directly to corporations in this case. There are plenty of incentives to offer to the big job creators out there (ie small businesses) that have nothing to do with corporate taxes. High personal income taxes also discourage small business owners from wanting to expand.

 

As for your second contention that cutting corporate taxes does nothing to increase ROI. It may not make a huge difference in profits in the long term, but businesses often don't operate on long term plans, as they need to answer to investors in the "right now". Often times expansion requires huge up front outlays of cash which investors do not want to see on balance sheets if there's a way those outlays could cost less in the future.

 

And yeah, if you want to refer to tax breaks for large companies as "corporate welfare", by all means. Difference is, "corporate welfare" usually leads to business expansion which provides real jobs and real returns, whereas individual welfare seems to breed nothing but a culture of entitlement.

Edited November 9, 2011 by NickF1011

[fordmantpw]

do you care?

 

Believe it or not, I do! But, the argument about the poor kids being affected is lame, and is used to pull at the heart strings of caring citizens. Many on welfare aren't supporting their kids with that money anyway, they are using it to buy drugs/alcohol/big screen TV's. Or, the kids are being used to get more welfare money...hey let's have another kid so we can get more money. How many people complained that forcing drug testing to receive welfare checks was going to force innocent children to go hungry? Really? Do you think folks that can't pass a drug test are really spending their welfare checks for the well-being of their children?

 

remember the 60s

 

Nope...I wasn't born until '76...

[akirby]

What you forgot is that this wonderful invention called capitalist is designed to create winner and losers, in order for the system to work the gains of the winners must be used to offset to losses of the losers

 

Absolute BS. You can take 100 people at random just out of high school and EVERY SINGLE one of them can be successful if they try hard enough. The fact that some are successful and some aren't is not a reflection of the system. It's a reflection of the individuals and what they're willing to do or not do. You can only guarantee equal opportunity - not equal outcomes.

 

Tell me what systematically prevents any of those 100 people from being successful?

 

the reality is that taxes are a disincentive to work.

the poverty line in the US for a Single person is $11,388

 

keep in minds %16 or 49 million Americans live below that line.

 

the Reverse income tax, creates an incentive to work, because if you don't work you do not get the credit, (different form the Child tax credit.)

The average welfare benefit in 2006 was $372 per month

 

How many of those 49 million Americans are students working part time living at home? My son was in that category all 4 years he was in college. He certainly wasn't living in poverty.

 

As far as an incentive to work - I have a much better incentive to work. If you don't work somewhere doing something you don't get any money. Period. Can't get much more incentive than that. Remember, I'm advocating local part time jobs for anyone willing to show up so there would be no excuse not to work if you're able.

 

 

Any fiscal conservative has to understand that it is more cost effective to simply send a check, than to develop punitive measures to compel work. in addition by creating a quasi-slave labor force you will put taxpayers out of work.

 

If the idea is to aid the poor, why make it more complex than it has to be.

 

Because the idea isn't to aid the poor - the idea is to allow the poor to aid themselves not be poor any more. If you give them handouts there is no incentive for them to do anything differently. They develop a lifestyle based on welfare payments and they stay there. How is that helpful to anybody? Note that I'm not including temporary situations where people need a helping hand. I'm all for that.

 

Education is "a drunken weekend in Las Vegas"? Transportation infrastructure? The NIH and NSF? The FDA? DOE & its National Laboratories?

 

You honestly don't see the value in any of those to the long-term success of our economy?

 

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me that you come from a Fortune 50 company. Let me guess: It's one that rose to prominence at least 40 years ago, in a then-new industry, but nowadays pays a steady dividend and only grows by cutting costs, closing operations, M&A, and financial operations?

 

Not even close. And those things you mentioned are part of the "buying a house or buying a car" that you conveniently ignored. There are many things that government provides that we need and that are useful. But there are also many things that government does that is wasteful and unnecessary. I would equate Solyndra to a drunken weekend in Vegas. That money is gone never to return and without any benefit whatsoever to the taxpayers - do you agree? There are thousands of other examples. How much money is wasted on disability for people who don't need it? I see at least one case every single week on Judge Judy and that's a tiny sample.

 

Interesting that you correlate the work government does that benefits society with a drunken weekend in Las Vegas. I'd love all you fiscal conservatives to just once contemplate how your day to day life is affected by this alleged wasted money. You're perfectly willing to defend and keep massive spending that benefits YOU, but God forbid someone else benefits, they're lazy losers who deserve nothing. Is there waste? Of course. Useless or outdated programs? Absolutely. Would eliminating every "silly, stupid, out or useless" program do anything to the budget. Hardly. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate them...but any assertion that cleaning up the budget that way solves fiscal problems is sound-bite, lazy thinking.

 

I didn't say that's all that was needed to clean up the budget. I think we need military cuts and cuts across the board to go along with some increased tax revenue. And eliminating wasteful spending really has nothing to do with the deficit - it's something we should have been doing all along. The entire idea is that we need to cut back to essentials until we get out of this crisis.

 

That's what you would be doing if you were running a business or operating your home with the same balance sheet.

 

Despite all your self-righteous indignation about how you didn't have parents to pay for your college education and your self-promotion about how you worked through college, you're able to conveniently overlook that millions of people besides yourself do that every year. I did it. Woop dee fucking doo. Give yourself a medal.

 

You totally misunderstood. The entire point of that was that if I can do it with no help then anybody can do it. What was so special about me that allowed me to do it and which prevents others from doing it? Not a damn thing. What is preventing others from doing the same thing? Not a damn thing. Do some people have to work harder to get there? Sure. Should we help them get there? Absolutely. But how does welfare and tax credits help them get there?

 

As for federal income taxes, it's bewildering to me that you believe a person making $13000 a year, who essentially spends every dollar of their income--only because they must to sustain themselves, should have to pay federal income tax.

 

Actually, I'm ok with not paying taxes at all on the lowest bracket but 47% not paying any income tax at all is ridiculous. Everybody gets benefit from Federal government services (according to previous assertions) so why shouldn't everyone have to pay at least a little bit of their share?

 

 

To what end? To teach them, what? "Ha ha, loser--if only you were smarter, you'd have a better job and make more money. But, you're a moron, so pay taxes like the rest of us." Has it occurred to you, for a fraction of a second that not every person in a low-wage job is there because they're lazy?

 

You may have noticed not everyone is a genius--not even the best educational system in the world can make someone who genetically isn't smart into a genius. But they're there working, earning a living. Who are you to criticize that? Who are you to burden what will likely be a lifetime of struggle with additional tax?

 

So - only smart people can be successful? Only people who are lucky? I didn't say you had to go to college to be successful.

 

What's to stop anybody - regardless of their grades or IQ or background - from learning a trade? What's to stop them from driving a semi truck? Managing a fast food restaurant? Operating a bulldozer? Painting houses? Owning a landscape business? Being an electrician or a plumber?

 

Entry level jobs are not meant to be dead-end careers. You're not supposed to be a fry cook or dishwasher forever. You're supposed to learn new skills and get experience and get better paying jobs and move up while new workers come into the bottom.

 

The only thing keeping people in entry level jobs living in "poverty" is their desire to make a better life for themselves. If they don't want to do that then that's their choice.

 

Again - equal opportunity to succeed - not guaranteed equal results.

[grbeck]

and who builds cars in New York, LA or San Fransisco? no one. In ED speak those areas are non competitive for Auto manufacturing.

 

The median income in Ohio and Michgan was 46,000 per year while the median income in Alabama was $40,000 per year. A Honda worker makes $28 per hour in Ohio while a Hyundai worker makes $14 an hour in Alabama. How does that Add up?

 

This is because of a higher cost of doing business, which means that wages have to be higher to be competitive. This example proves my point that you cannot look solely at wages to determine whether a worker is open to a unionization drive (and also proves incorrect your earlier assertion that there is no real difference in the cost of living among various states and municipalities in the United States).

 

The cost of living is lower in the places where most transplants have located plants, so the fact that wages are lower is not really significant, and no proof that those wages cannot buy the same or a higher standard of living as compared to the industrial Midwest or the Northeast.

 

Your figures for the Hyundai workers don't add up, as we'll see below. There are, however, workers making $14 an hour. Oops, they are the "second tier" workers covered by the UAW contract. This is from the September 12, 2011 edition of that well-known right-wing rag, The New York Times:

 

They are a cornerstone of Chrysler’s unlikely comeback: 900 employees turning out a Jeep Grand Cherokee sport utility vehicle every 48 seconds of the working day at an assembly plant here.

 

Nothing distinguishes them from other workers at the Jefferson North plant, except their paychecks. The newest workers earn about $14 an hour; longtime employees earn double that. (emphasis added)

 

“Everybody is appreciative of a job and glad to be working,” said Derrick Chatman, who makes $14.65 an hour putting tires on Jeeps after being laid off at Home Depot, working odd construction jobs and collecting unemployment.

 

What was once seen as a desperate move to prop up the struggling auto industry is now considered an integral part of its future. The demand for $14-an-hour manufacturing jobs is providing Detroit’s Big Three automakers with a ready pool of eager new employees. Last year, Chrysler was flooded with inquiries about the jobs here. It froze the list after receiving 10,000 applications.

 

I guess you missed the memo that 99% of all quality problems are design not manufacturing problems.

 

Except, of course, that you suggested that the lower cost of doing business in the South was the result of a less educated workforce, which therefore lacks the skills necessary to produce a quality product. Given that you have now admitted that they have little or no control over the quality of the final product, you've also admitted that there is no real reason to locate a vehicle manufacturing plant in a higher cost area to gain access to supposedly better educated workers.

 

and the UAW made Ford stop all development on passenger cars in the 90s? how about making Ford buy jaguar, land rover, Volvo, and Aston Martin? how did the UAW force ford to lose $350 million on metal futures in Q3 of this year? how can what makes up <10% of the cost of a vehcile alone cause the destruction of GM and Chrysler? I guess the UAW is the reason why GM in Europe is losing money.

 

The higher cost structure forced the companies to focus on higher margin products, which, in the 1990s and early 2000s, were trucks and SUVs. I certainly don't place all of the blame for the difficulties of the Big Three at the feet of the UAW, it doesn't get off scot-free, either.

 

And, sorry, but even a 5 percent disadvantage on costs can place a company at a competitive disadvantage, particularly with low-margin products, such as smaller cars. Do you believe, for example, that Ford builds the Fiesta and Fusion in Mexico only because the executives prefer warmer weather and genuine Mexican cuisine?

 

In Europe, GM has been attempting to move production to lower cost locations for years now. When I was in Europe in 2004, VW was threatening to build a new product in Portugal unless it received concessions from its German unions, and Mercedes was also demanding concessions. And VW sources a fair amount of VWs sold here from South America and Mexico, and has built an entirely new (non-union) plant in Tennessee to produce the new Passat. Sometimes, actions speak louder than words.

 

Toyota pays $28 per hour Hyundai pays $14 per hour.

 

I think this case is quite compelling.

 

Your figures are incorrect. This is from the February 18, 2011 edition of The New York Times:

 

For more than a year, workers at the Hyundai plant have been putting in 10 hours of overtime a week as part of their regular schedule, plus occasional Saturdays. With an average regular wage of about $20 an hour, the additional overtime hours mean workers here are earning more than many workers at the unionized plants up north. (emphasis added)

 

That isn't exactly a compelling reason for unionization (and you compared the Hyundai plant to a non-union plant anyway, further invalidating your example).

Edited November 9, 2011 by grbeck

[Noah Harbinger]

I would equate Solyndra to a drunken weekend in Vegas. That money is gone never to return and without any benefit whatsoever to the taxpayers - do you agree?

 

 

There are things obvious in hindsight that could never have been known in foresight. I haven't been following Solyndra closely but it seems more like an unexpected shift in the commodities markets undermined what was previously a sound business plan.

 

We won't be entirely without benefit. Thousands of jobs were created during a time when unemployment was the worst. Other corporations will buy up the assets - the intellectual property, the machinery, the facilities - and resume production, though probably on a smaller scale.

 

But what of the other $8 billion in loans under the same agreement? Is every one of those a failure? That section of the act has had one spectacular failure, but the successes of promising new technologies and companies expanding domestic production of high-value goods are many times greater on the whole, and will almost certainly pay off in terms of long-term tax revenue alone, setting aside the value to the economy as a whole of jobs created and domestically-produced energy.

 

There are thousands of other examples. How much money is wasted on disability for people who don't need it? I see at least one case every single week on Judge Judy and that's a tiny sample.

 

I don't watch Judge Judy, can't stand junk like that. Those kinds of shows attract the worst of attention whores; wouldn't surprise me if it's full of crooks and liars.

 

Most of the people I know on disability need it (the only cheat I know is a cousin who continues to lay tile under the table while on disability for a back injury. Not surprisingly, he's a hard-core republican). What percentage is fraud? Obviously we have very different experiences, but mine lead me to believe the numbers are very low.

[NickF1011]

How about the new 15 cent tax on Christmas trees for the Agriculture Department to promote Christmas trees? WTF kind of nonsense is our government thrusting upon us?! Seriously? 1. This is just a ludicrous program. 2. This is an even more ludicrous program given the current situation with government overspending. 3. Doesn't our government have more pressing issues right now???

[grbeck]

The point is: Welfare as you characterize it essentially no longer exists. For the most part it's food stamps.

 

That is not accurate. Welfare is far more than the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps).

 

You are forgetting Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid, various government health insurance programs for children, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, free school lunches (and, in many cases, free breakfasts and after-school snacks) and the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

 

You're also overlooking that, despite welfare reform, many states have been very lenient in enforcing the requirements (particularly the job-search requirements) designed to encourage people to leave the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program (TANF, or what we commonly think of as welfare). California, in particular, has been notorious for having very weak job-search requirements.

 

Some states have been very lenient in allowing people to qualify for it in the first place. Here in Pennsylvania, under the Rendell Administration, the mantra among personnel at the state Department of Public Welfare was "Close your eyes and authorize," because people rejected by the county welfare offices were able to regularly have that decision reversed at the state level.

 

My wife was a social worker for many years, and is now a special education teacher in an urban, poor school district. She still gets together with her social worker friends, as well as her fellow teachers. What's amazing is how these formerly liberal women, after exposure to both the system and people who use it, sound like Rush Limbaugh after awhile. You hear lots of talk of the need for sterilization and the need to reduce benefits to loafers. Amazingly enough, they do not blame Republicans or the rich for the plight of the poor in this country.

 

Actually working in the real world with the poor, as opposed to wailing about their plight on the internet or on the pages of The Nation, tends to give one a more accurate picture of the situation.

 

As for federal income taxes, it's bewildering to me that you believe a person making $13000 a year, who essentially spends every dollar of their income--only because they must to sustain themselves, should have to pay federal income tax. To what end? To teach them, what? "Ha ha, loser--if only you were smarter, you'd have a better job and make more money. But, you're a moron, so pay taxes like the rest of us." Has it occurred to you, for a fraction of a second that not every person in a low-wage job is there because they're lazy?

 

What's bewildering to me is the assertion that rich are not paying their fair share of taxes, when even a simple and cursory examination of who pays what shows that these supposedly awful "rich" are the ones actually paying most federal income taxes, and that 47 percent of wage earners do not pay any of this tax.

 

The point is that people with skin in the game are less likely to clamor for more government benefits when they have to help pay for them.

Edited November 9, 2011 by grbeck

[fordmantpw]

Most of the people I know on disability need it (the only cheat I know is a cousin who continues to lay tile under the table while on disability for a back injury. Not surprisingly, he's a hard-core republican). What percentage is fraud? Obviously we have very different experiences, but mine lead me to believe the numbers are very low.

 

WTH does the fact that he is a republican have to do with it? Nothing! It's just a jabs at Republicans.

 

How about the new 15 cent tax on Christmas trees for the Agriculture Department to promote Christmas trees? WTF kind of nonsense is our government thrusting upon us?! Seriously? 1. This is just a ludicrous program. 2. This is an even more ludicrous program given the current situation with government overspending. 3. Doesn't our government have more pressing issues right now???

 

You mean promoting Christmas trees aren't the most important thing in the world right now? Where is your Christmas spirit?!?

[NickF1011]

Where is your Christmas spirit?!?

 

It'll be at the shopping mall...or in my living room decorating my fake tree. :P

[Noah Harbinger]

WTH does the fact that he is a republican have to do with it? Nothing! It's just a jabs at Republicans.

 

It's just that in my experience the only ones engaging in the activities Republicans accuse Democrats of doing are Republicans themselves - welfare cheats, tax evasion, vote fraud. It's just irony.

[FordBuyer]

That is not accurate. Welfare if FAR more than the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps).

 

You are forgetting Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid, various government health insurance programs for children, Women, Infants and Children (WIC), free school lunches (and, in many cases, free breakfasts and after-school snacks) and the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

 

You're also overlooking that, despite welfare reform, many states have been very lenient in enforcing the requirements (particularly the job-search requirements) designed to encourage people to leave the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program (TANF, or what we commonly think of as welfare). California, in particular, has been notorious for having very weak job-search requirements.

 

Some states have been very lenient in allowing people to qualify for it in the first place. Here in Pennsylvania, under the Rendell Administration, the mantra among personnel at the state Department of Public Welfare was "Close your eyes and authorize," because people rejected by the county welfare offices were able to regularly have that decision reversed at the state level.

 

My wife was a social worker for many years, and is now a special education teacher in an urban, poor school district. She still gets together with her social worker friends, as well as her fellow teachers. What's amazing is how these formerly liberal women, after exposure to both the system and people who use it, sound like Rush Limbaugh after awhile. You hear lots of talk of the need for sterilization and the need to reduce benefits to loafers. Amazingly enough, they do not blame Republicans or the rich for the plight of the poor in this country.

 

Actually working in the real world with the poor, as opposed to wailing about their plight on the internet or on the pages of The Nation, tends to give one a more accurate picture of the situation.

 

 

 

What's bewildering to me is the assertion that rich are not paying their fair share of taxes, when even a simple and cursory examination of who pays what shows that these supposedly awful "rich" are the ones actually paying most federal income taxes, and that 47 percent of wage earners do not pay any of this tax. The point is that people with skin in the game are less likely to clamor for more government benefits that they clearly expect someone else to pay.

 

 

It is a queston of fairness and the fact that rich people are paying less in taxes percentage wise than they did under Reagan Presidency. The earned income tax credit has been done away with by the Republicans in MI and I know Repbublicans nationally would like to do same. The whole idea behind EITC was to provide motivation for welfare culture people to get out and hold down paying jobs and be productive citizens. I know I pay capital gains tax most years and have no problem paying a few more percent if it will help the deficit. In fact, it's all moot because Obama is not going to renew the Bush tax cuts anyway. The credit ratings agencies are looking at U.S. Debt and will downgrade U.S. Debt if they don't see meaningful increases in tax revenue and cuts in long term spending. They want to see both, and it is about Fairness in that all income classes will be paying more in some way and losing something benefit wise. There is CERTAINTY in this economy...taxes are going to go up locally, state, and nationally. The only uncertainty is when.

[Noah Harbinger]

How about the new 15 cent tax on Christmas trees for the Agriculture Department to promote Christmas trees? WTF kind of nonsense is our government thrusting upon us?! Seriously? 1. This is just a ludicrous program. 2. This is an even more ludicrous program given the current situation with government overspending. 3. Doesn't our government have more pressing issues right now???

 

Seems pretty stupid. It's a result of a 3-year lobbying campaign by the National Christmas Tree association, though - essentially, the association of christmas tree growers themselves weren't getting the marketing support from growers voluntarily, but apparently agricultural industry groups are able to use USDA rules to force payments from other growers.

 

 

As explained in the Fall 2008 edition of Christmas Trees, a leading Christmas tree magazine, fee levels are established by industry -- not government -- and commodity growers frequently partner with the USDA for marketing and research checkoffs:

Examples of other agricultural commodity Checkoffs include the egg, beef, pork, mushroom, milk, and honey, etc. industries. We're all familiar with the Dairy industry's ad campaigns; "Milk Does a Body Good" and "Got Milk." "Pork: the Other White Meat," "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" and "The Incredible Edible Egg" are recognizable slogans developed and funded by Checkoff programs. These four 'big guns' collect between $45 and $91.2 million in assessments annually.

 

http://mediamatters....og/201111090001 has an interesting fact-based look at the situation, if you're sick of the right-wing vomit machine.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Noah Harbinger