tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post1999461701779341005..comments2023-12-29T05:24:43.830-06:00Comments on Kay Brooks: 2008-12-13 RoundupKay Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-41427145129635891452008-12-15T09:16:00.000-06:002008-12-15T09:16:00.000-06:00You're are right, Eric. It's theft. This industry-...You're are right, Eric. It's theft. <BR/><BR/>This industry---and the others---must survive or fail on their merits. Not because they've financially lined the pockets of politicians. I never intended my tax dollars to by the mortgage or auto industry. Like you said, Eric, we already paid by buying the car and repair parts.<BR/><BR/>Throw in the tremendous loss in people's retirement funds because these businesses and politicians didn't consider the long term implications of living within their means and you've got theft upon theft. <BR/><BR/>We're in for a bumpy ride, to quote Bette Davis, but I'd rather ride it out now than let it continue to compound and become a roller coaster.Kay Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-42615607759859020132008-12-15T09:03:00.000-06:002008-12-15T09:03:00.000-06:00If NS feels I'm treating him with contempt, he'll ...If NS feels I'm treating him with contempt, he'll get my sincere apology. I never intended contempt. <BR/><BR/>As to his well thought out and articulate posts...well, obviously you're a supporter of him and his viewpoints. I'm a busy mom with a 'get to the point' attitude and life experience that tells me an abundance of words in well crafted language should be viewed warily. Life is rarely that complicated.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I'm glad you find my little blog amusing. Keep reading. I financially benefit from the page views and since we don't have good union jobs here that will pay for 4 years of nonproductivity...I have to keep the posts and views coming.Kay Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-71213202225296293362008-12-15T08:28:00.000-06:002008-12-15T08:28:00.000-06:00"It was about extorting so much from people..."Ind...<I>"It was about extorting so much from people..."</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed it was. Extorting from the American taxpayer. <BR/><BR/>I have owned American cars for almost 25 years (and still own two of them). I have paid the 67% markup on dealer parts. I have even occasionally paid the $80/hour dealer labor rate for some repair work I can't perform myself. I have dealt with the frustration of "discontinued" parts on an 8-year old vehicle. I also have pointed out to foreign car-owning friends that the foreign dealers too have a long row of repair bays full of broken, malfunctioning, "high quality" imports - just like everyone else. <BR/><BR/>The reality is that your family's financial stability and education are owed to end-user customers like me. If we don't buy cars and parts, it really doesn't matter if you make them or not. UAW workers have exorbitant benefits (and in some cases salaries) that no one else in private industry has. The rest of the working world (except government employees) have done without those benefits in order to stay in business. Now the UAW expects taxpayers (customers) to do with even less so they can continue with their lavish benefits. No thanks. I have paid for enough of those UAW benefits as a customer. At least I received something in return in the past in the form of an automobile or repair parts. This is just theft. <BR/><BR/>Sen. Corker represents Tennesseans. Not Ohio or Michigan UAW. For once, he actually acted like it.Eric Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04474521455238285586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-22673368796383731702008-12-15T00:07:00.000-06:002008-12-15T00:07:00.000-06:00Kay Brooks telling someone they don't get it? Ah,...Kay Brooks telling someone they don't get it? Ah, the irony...<BR/><BR/>Seriously, N.S., I don't know why you bother trying to debate here. I mean, if you enjoy it, then by all means, go for it. But it seems to me about as productive as banging one's head against a wall.<BR/><BR/>Ms. Brooks, I read your blog because I find it incredibly amusing. What I don't find so amusing is that N.S. consistently produces well-thought out, articulate arguments, and you insist upon treating him with contempt. I don't know if you choose to over-simplify his points or simply fail to understand them, but honestly, it's not helping your case at all. It's you who "doesn't get it", not him.Therinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07813606561393664151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-33687010408097851862008-12-13T16:23:00.000-06:002008-12-13T16:23:00.000-06:00"But, ultimately, all the union asked for was for ..."But, ultimately, all the union asked for was for its present contract to be honored."<BR/><BR/>You don't get it do you? The big three are financially unable to honor the contracts they made with the UAW. You can't get blood out of a turnip. The UAW and the car makers are responsible for making bad decisions that are causing them to go out of business. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I understand this means it will impact other people and their jobs--from other manufacturers to the Quickie-Mart around the corner. <BR/><BR/>I maintain it's better to take this financial hit NOW rather than later when it will only be worse. Unemployment is just 7% or so. During The Great Depression it was 25%. <BR/><BR/>I also realize that what is most likely happen is someone with cash will acquire the assets of these companies and will turn around and start making cars...cheaper cars that the rest of us might be able to afford if our tax money isn't being confiscated to prop up folks who can get away with being unproductive for 4!!! years.Kay Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-31661635033421715732008-12-13T16:02:00.000-06:002008-12-13T16:02:00.000-06:001. If UAW insisted that all concessions be made pa...1. If UAW insisted that all concessions be made part of the contract renegotiation process itself, everyone's mis-reporting the issue, at least as far as I can see. All the media reports that I've seen say something like <A HREF="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/12/business/13uaw.php" REL="nofollow">this:</A> the union "sought...to push any concessions back to 2011, when UAW's the contract...expires."<BR/><BR/>There's a big difference in saying that concessions will take effect when a new contract is negotiated and saying that they'll take effect when the present contract expires. The latter is a fixed date - it's just not the certain date that Corker insisted upon. (If the former is the case, I can't find a legitimate media source that reports it as such.)<BR/><BR/>Now, we can debate the merits of '09 vs. '11, just as we can debate the merits of the union's concessions themselves. But, ultimately, all the union asked for was for its present contract to be honored. Corker refused to make that small compromise. That's not good policy; that's a stubborn refusal to actually negotiate.<BR/><BR/>Also, even if the concessions were to go along with the new contract, rather than the end of the old, there's no reason to believe that the UAW wouldn't rush to get the new one set up. They've already opened the contract up early for concessions, and they'd already agreed to the cuts Corker wanted. Given that the survival of all their jobs would depend on them following through, what incentive would they have to then stall on the new contract? Absolutely none.<BR/><BR/>(And, as a result of Corker's "negotiations," we've probably gotten the worst of all possible worlds - a bailout that will be doled out by the feds, rather than set up by the legislature. The odds are that no one will be happy with that.)<BR/><BR/>2. As far as the "living beyond our means" bit - this isn't a question of just making the economic "villains" of the current crisis suffer. If we let the Big Three fail, companies that depend on them will, in turn, collapse, causing a ripple effect of unemployment and deepened recession. That, in turn, would result in more corporations failing, which would repeat the cycle - eventually, across the globe.<BR/><BR/>We're not bailing out the Big Three because they deserve it. We're not even bailing them out because their workers are important to us. We're doing it because, if we don't, we're looking at a global, economic depression. Not a few people sucking it up - a lot of people starving.<BR/><BR/>And, in fact, just preventing the Three's failure from taking place during the current recession would be of great benefit, even if they are later forced to drastically change or file bankruptcy.<BR/><BR/>3. You know, you're right. It's not fair at all that your dimes might go towards a bailout that you didn't help necessitate. Really, the vast majority of things that our government spends money on are unfair to someone, and they could all get up in arms and ask the government how it could dare spend their dimes like that. Sometimes, I'm sure, they'd be in the right.<BR/><BR/>This isn't one of those times. Again, we're talking about the stability of the global economy, here. It's more important than your dimes or your outrage. And the odds are very, very good that, if we don't have a bailout, you'll be seeing your dimes draining away fruitlessly, instead of being spent for the sake of our nation's security.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'd be willing to cope with a little - or a lot - of unfairness, to avoid that.N.S. Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00594978546540226304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-5048882184111927472008-12-13T13:03:00.000-06:002008-12-13T13:03:00.000-06:00I'm sure your father is very proud of you. "When t...I'm sure your father is very proud of you. <BR/><BR/>"When their contract was set to be renegotiated" in 2011. That's that 'date certain part' that the UAW wouldn't' agree to. Maybe it'd be 2011 or maybe it would take another year to negotiate. In the meantime these companies could go belly up with taxpayers on the hook for a HUGE amount of cash. <BR/><BR/>Yup, huge economic repercussions are the natural result of living beyond your means and being greedy. It's time to suck it up. Adding more debt and risky investments isn't going to solve the problem. <BR/><BR/>Additionally how dare anyone who is receiving 4 years of full compensation for not working demand I fork over one dime of our family's budget for their welfare.Kay Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073075957511329333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7186797.post-69339544501879188252008-12-13T12:38:00.000-06:002008-12-13T12:38:00.000-06:00Okay, I officially despise Bob Corker.I mean, I'm ...Okay, I officially despise Bob Corker.<BR/><BR/>I mean, I'm not surprised by the fact that he's staunchly anti-union. That's upsetting, especially since I almost certainly owe my family's financial stability and my past and present education to my father having a good, union job, but it's not shocking.<BR/><BR/>I'm not even that horrified by the fact that Sen. Corker would let his ire for unions extend into a crisis as serious as this one. Anyone who thinks that any of the Big Three can go into bankruptcy without huge, economic repercussions is ideologically and politically blindfolded, but I sort of expect that from senators from TN.<BR/><BR/>What's utterly reprehensible, though, are the falsehoods and distortions that Corker and his allies are spreading about the UAW. Not only were they <A HREF="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16545.html" REL="nofollow">already planning to spin this</A> as the union's fault before <A HREF="http://gm-volt.com/2008/12/11/breaking-automaker-bailout-negotiations-break-down-bill-appears-dead/" REL="nofollow">negotiations broke down</A>, but the over-inflated estimates of UAW benefits are <A HREF="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1026e955-541c-4aa6-bcf2-56dfc3323682" REL="nofollow">out-dated and misleading to begin with,</A> not accounting for recent changes to UAW's contract and to the Big Three's vast employee base.<BR/><BR/>You just have to look at what happened during the actual negotiations - the union effectively offered just about everything the Republicans wanted, to take effect when their contract was set to be renegotiated - to see that Corker's plan was never about saving the Big Three. It was about extorting so much from people who didn't want to lose their jobs that the union effectively wouldn't exist anymore - and, if that failed, to use it as a political bludgeon against Democrats.<BR/><BR/>Given the whole vast economic crisis thing going on, that's way past politically scummy. Really, there are only two possibilities. Either Corker's playing crass, political chicken with our nation's economy for the sake of some cheap points at the expense of American workers, or he really thinks that the Big Three can fail without horrible results for our nation as a whole.<BR/><BR/>In either case, he's not worthy to come within ten inches of a Senate seat.N.S. Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00594978546540226304noreply@blogger.com