US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions

From : william boyd

Q: us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. .

Replies:

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. no i saw it read it and understood it to indicate you consider yourself to be superior to me and/or you think you can restrict whom i reply to or comments i can make. the last time i checked this was still an open unmoderated forum . . .wait i think you told a few people that when they slammed you for your rude commetaries. hmm that makes it good old pkb doesnt it by posting go argue with somebody else indicated i was superior to you or was attempting to restrict to whom you reply to i found it to be demeaning and insulting. i have the right to be insulted and to be offended ya know. how you twisted go argue with somebody else into anything else other than i didnt desire to get into a argument with you is beyond me. simple. you could have been more polite. you must have been sitting at the keyboard for a couple of days just waiting. it would seem to me that you could have picked a better place to jump in you are looking pretty foolish imo yes i did read the thread for a couple days to get the gist clear in my mind and to see what direction it was going . . .something some others should do. this is going to be one of your better tantrums i can see it coming. tell ya what budd lets see if i was correct and you do run true to form. lol if it had been merely a comment to prevent an argument you could have been far more polite. here is where you are insulted. upset whining nope just giving my viewpoint on the situation...oh thats what you consider to be upset and whining. imho it is you that whines everytime someone says anything against your unholy master the union. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. and im insulting yes i just responded in kind. gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. and when will you decide to turn all your liberties over to others roy why not just move to a socialist country and get it over with. why do you support organizations that restrict the freedom to work in a chosen profession because one does not want to abide by union rules or pay out monies to that organization its called a closed shop roy and its often kept me from having better jobs as i would be turned down for jobs i was the best candidate for because i would not join the union. oh wait others dont matter just your wallet right so your union masters are part of why im in the current financial condition im in because i applied for a job with the nickle plate line years ago and that was why i was turned down. heres where ya blame somebody or something. you decided where and for who you wanted to work. maybe they thought you couldnt cut it. i thought you claimed to understand unions you dont understand a closed shop either join the union or else its either not be hired or lose your job if you are i was told by the employer i would have to join the union to be allowed to work there and if i refused i was no longer in consideration. now thats not placing blame its stating fact roy. i dont wont and i can say what ever i want as long as i dont violate my isps regulations. by all means. actually your posts of late are following your usual pattern and that is disappointing but it is what it is. tough roy. killfile me if it bothers you so much. i wont miss your whinings in support of your wallet or your insulting remarks about my current state of health. here we we go about you health. although you are too self centered and absorbed to notice there are others here who have had and continue to have health problems some im sure more serious than yours. most dont bother to mention them constantly they just continue on. hell you are unaware of my health problems arent ya well gee roy you better get your memory checked. i was asked about my health problems way back when and now if i mention them its only when asked or some clown like you makes derogatory comments about them since they have been made public. see the difference between me and you is i live with them as best i can and dont complain about them. of course rolling a atv sorta brings them to the fore. but it is what it is. lol you apparently think i have no life outside this group. i go fishing as often as possible i still work on my own vehicles in spite of the pain. and not once have i mentioned the pain etc. from those activities. my postings do not violate those regulations. no they are the same tiresome budd gets insulted and pissed off clai

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

oh btw roy just one final comment about my health issues. you keep mentioning my supposed whining abut my health. remember that not a single person in the group had said a thing in that regard until someone in a fit of hatred made the claim. all youve done is support that hatred and that bias. -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 roy wrote whatever. budd good night! roy *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : roy

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. no i saw it read it and understood it to indicate you consider yourself to be superior to me and/or you think you can restrict whom i reply to or comments i can make. the last time i checked this was still an open unmoderated forum . . .wait i think you told a few people that when they slammed you for your rude commetaries. hmm that makes it good old pkb doesnt it by posting go argue with somebody else indicated i was superior to you or was attempting to restrict to whom you reply to i found it to be demeaning and insulting. i have the right to be insulted and to be offended ya know. let me get this straight you claim my post go argue with somebody else was a indication that i was superior to you and was trying to restrict who you reply to. now after more warped but convienent thinking you also found that go argue with somebody else was demeaning and insulting all i have to say is wow!! although budd it is you usual mo gotta have a excuse any excuse. how you twisted go argue with somebody else into anything else other than i didnt desire to get into a argument with you is beyond me. simple. you could have been more polite. that was polite should i have said please go argue with somebody else no matter you needed the excuse. see budd it fits your pattern. you must have been sitting at the keyboard for a couple of days just waiting. it would seem to me that you could have picked a better place to jump in you are looking pretty foolish imo yes i did read the thread for a couple days to get the gist clear in my mind and to see what direction it was going . . .something some others should do. how do you think i knew that it is your pattern you were pissed off in the other thread so ya waited to jump in here. i still say ya look pretty foolish but you should be use to that. try to have some dignity will ya. this is going to be one of your better tantrums i can see it coming. tell ya what budd lets see if i was correct and you do run true to form. lol lol you have been tying to justify your bs for some time. the pattern is showing. true to form. if it had been merely a comment to prevent an argument you could have been far more polite. you knew exactly what it was but you were so hot to jump in. you are grasping at anything to validate your bs. here is where you are insulted. upset whining nope just giving my viewpoint on the situation...oh thats what you consider to be upset and whining. imho it is you that whines everytime someone says anything against your unholy master the union. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. and im insulting yes i just responded in kind. dont ya see it yet budd you are reaching sooo hard to justify yor remarks it would be laughable were it not so pathetic. gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. and when will you decide to turn all your liberties over to others roy why not just move to a socialist country and get it over with. why do you support organizations that restrict the freedom to work in a chosen profession because one does not want to abide by union rules or pay out monies to that organization its called a closed shop roy and its often kept me from having better jobs as i would be turned down for jobs i was the best candidate for because i would not join the union. oh wait others dont matter just your wallet right so your union masters are part of why im in the current financial condition im in because i applied for a job with the nickle plate line years ago and that was why i was turned down. heres where ya blame somebody or something. you decided where and for who you wanted to work. maybe they thought you couldnt cut it. i thought you claimed to understand unions you dont understand a closed shop sure i do the railroad industry is a closed shop. actually you dont have to join you pay a reduced fee of some sort. but you do recieve all the benifits and stuff just like you paid dues as a member. either join the union or else its either not be hired or lose your job if you are i was told by the employer i would have to join the union to be allowed to work there and if i refused i was no longer in consideration. okay so you could have worked there but didnt want to join a union. you made a choice and didnt work there. so you live by your choice and went to work elsewhere. great good for you. you made your choice apparantly it was a poor one

From : roy

whatever. budd good night! roy *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix oh btw roy just one final comment about my health issues. you keep mentioning my supposed whining abut my health. remember that not a single person in the group had said a thing in that regard until someone in a fit of hatred made the claim. all youve done is support that hatred and that bias. okay. i ended it last night ya had your last. i snipped about the entire thread and said good night. but no that isnt good enough for you. you want to keep on going pull those straps tight! budd i dont remember anybody mentioning your health in any way other than you. regardless i am sick of hearing about it. useing health issues as a excuse for behavior as you have in this thread is or to elict sympathy is repugnet imo. there is no hatred involved just a opinon. i gotta get back in the truck budd there is a blizzard going on here. ill be back to play with ya later tonight or sometime monday if you want to continue. if you decide we continue we might as well use the whole thread there was a bunch i probably should have replied to but didnt. up to you. roy .

From : roy

roy wrote whatever. budd good night! roy .

From : budd cochran

roy wrote im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. no i saw it read it and understood it to indicate you consider yourself to be superior to me and/or you think you can restrict whom i reply to or comments i can make. the last time i checked this was still an open unmoderated forum . . .wait i think you told a few people that when they slammed you for your rude commetaries. hmm that makes it good old pkb doesnt it by posting go argue with somebody else indicated i was superior to you or was attempting to restrict to whom you reply to i found it to be demeaning and insulting. i have the right to be insulted and to be offended ya know. let me get this straight you claim my post go argue with somebody else was a indication that i was superior to you and was trying to restrict who you reply to. now after more warped but convienent thinking you also found that go argue with somebody else was demeaning and insulting yep. all i have to say is wow!! although budd it is you usual mo gotta have a excuse any excuse. no its truth. you cant handle truth. how you twisted go argue with somebody else into anything else other than i didnt desire to get into a argument with you is beyond me. simple. you could have been more polite. that was polite should i have said please go argue with somebody else no matter you needed the excuse. see budd it fits your pattern. if that was polite youre no miss manners. you must have been sitting at the keyboard for a couple of days just waiting. it would seem to me that you could have picked a better place to jump in you are looking pretty foolish imo yes i did read the thread for a couple days to get the gist clear in my mind and to see what direction it was going . . .something some others should do. how do you think i knew that it is your pattern you were pissed off in the other thread so ya waited to jump in here. i still say ya look pretty foolish but you should be use to that. try to have some dignity will ya. if i took your opinion of me to the local coffee shop it would stil cost a $1.75 for a cup of joe. and your opinion means less than that to me. this is going to be one of your better tantrums i can see it coming. tell ya what budd lets see if i was correct and you do run true to form. lol lol you have been tying to justify your bs for some time. the pattern is showing. true to form. lol whatever roy youve made a decision about me a wrong decision but a decision. and like most liberals you wont change it no matter what. its called bigotry btw. if it had been merely a comment to prevent an argument you could have been far more polite. you knew exactly what it was but you were so hot to jump in. you are grasping at anything to validate your bs. and what are you doing what are you whining about when it comes to unions to support your bs here is where you are insulted. upset whining nope just giving my viewpoint on the situation...oh thats what you consider to be upset and whining. imho it is you that whines everytime someone says anything against your unholy master the union. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. and im insulting yes i just responded in kind. dont ya see it yet budd you are reaching sooo hard to justify yor remarks it would be laughable were it not so pathetic. go ahead and laugh if you want. you must or you wouldnt mention it. gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. and when will you decide to turn all your liberties over to others roy why not just move to a socialist country and get it over with. why do you support organizations that restrict the freedom to work in a chosen profession because one does not want to abide by union rules or pay out monies to that organization its called a closed shop roy and its often kept me from having better jobs as i would be turned down for jobs i was the best candidate for because i would not join the union. oh wait others dont matter just your wallet right so your union masters are part of why im in the current financial condition im in because i applied for a job with the nickle plate line years ago and that was why i was turned down. heres where ya blame somebody or something. you decided where and for who you wanted to work. maybe they thought you couldnt cut it. i thought you claimed to understand unions you dont understand a closed shop sure i do the railroad industry is a closed shop. actually you dont have

From : roy

us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. when i first saw this post i was going to ignore it for a couple of reasons. one it would undoubtedly become a heated thread as these threads tend to. two william boyd imo is a friggin troll. having said that i was watching the national tonight and saw the piece about united airlines out of bankrauptcy after three years. the highlights were the airline is flying with a few less planes a whole lot of lay offs the union workers tookor was it demanded a 30% pay cut retired workers saw their pensions reduced 75%. oh the ceo recieved a 15million dollar bonus other upper managers also recieved some hefty bonuss. as i said there are good and bad unions. ymmv roy bill p. .

From : don dunlap

us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. when i first saw this post i was going to ignore it for a couple of reasons. one it would undoubtedly become a heated thread as these threads tend to. two william boyd imo is a friggin troll. having said that i was watching the national tonight and saw the piece about united airlines out of bankrauptcy after three years. the highlights were the airline is flying with a few less planes a whole lot of lay offs the union workers tookor was it demanded a 30% pay cut retired workers saw their pensions reduced 75%. oh the ceo recieved a 15million dollar bonus other upper managers also recieved some hefty bonuss. as i said there are good and bad unions. ymmv roy bill p. isnt united owned by the union don .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

whatever. budd good night! roy *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix oh btw roy just one final comment about my health issues. you keep mentioning my supposed whining abut my health. remember that not a single person in the group had said a thing in that regard until someone in a fit of hatred made the claim. all youve done is support that hatred and that bias. okay. i ended it last night ya had your last. i snipped about the entire thread and said good night. but no that isnt good enough for you. you want to keep on going pull those straps tight! no just had one last comment. budd i dont remember anybody mentioning your health in any way other than you. regardless i am sick of hearing about it. useing health issues as a excuse for behavior as you have in this thread is or to elict sympathy is repugnet imo. there is no hatred involved just a opinon. then you need to see a doctor about a memory problem its either selective or failing. otoh i know and admit my memory is getting worse. i gotta get back in the truck budd there is a blizzard going on here. ill be back to play with ya later tonight or sometime monday if you want to continue. if you decide we continue we might as well use the whole thread there was a bunch i probably should have replied to but didnt. up to you. roy whatever. -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : xclimation

tell this to lee iacocca. unions are usually the scapegoat for bad management. ford and gm automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of imagination. just look at the design and quality of these cars compared to foreign counterparts and one can see where the real problem is. if the assembly line workers dont show up to work no cars are built. if management doesnt show up to work everything runs fine. us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. .

From : mac davis

on thu 2 feb 2006 105211 -0500 don dunlap nospam@spam.com wrote isnt united owned by the union don i dont think so.... my 2 brothers are both retired from united and they bought stock for years on some kind of company contribution thing... kind of like you buy x amount of stock out of your paycheck and well throw in x amount with it.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .

From : tom lawrence

assembly line workers dont show up to work no cars are built. if management doesnt show up to work everything runs fine. that is true only for the very short term. a rather absurd line of logic to carry any further yep... obviously someone whos never read lord of the flies .

From : roy

-- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 go argue with somebody else. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not dont say anything against unions around roy. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. i dont wont and i can say what ever i want as long as i dont violate my isps regulations. my postings do not violate those regulations. -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 go argue with somebody else. . 222 312403 86a7d$43ed5693$d8602e79$13568@alltel.net not like you think. remember open rear only means that there is nothing forcing the wheels to turn at the same speed not that they can turn at different speeds with no effect to the axle speed. there is no magic here if the two wheels are turning at different speeds then the axle will turn at a speed between them as there is no way for the axle to take up the difference in an open rear other than changing speed. this will cause little wear on the spyder gears in an open rear as that is what they are intended to do anyway. agreed. the spyder gears are inteneded to take up differance in rotational speed between 2 wheels on the same axle during a turn. thus they do nothing while in straightline mode. running 2 diff tire sizes on the same axle essentially puts the axles differentail in a continuous turning mode as if it was in a constant corner they dont take up the difference they allow the wheels to turn at different speeds b

From : roy

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. i dont wont and i can say what ever i want as long as i dont violate my isps regulations. by all means. actually your posts of late are following your usual pattern and that is disappointing but it is what it is. my postings do not violate those regulations. no they are the same tiresome budd gets insulted and pissed off claims he has been attcked throws the religon card blames all his problems on somebody or something then goes into a snit and stops posting for a bit. i just dont want to be part of it. are we done now. roy .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. no i saw it read it and understood it to indicate you consider yourself to be superior to me and/or you think you can restrict whom i reply to or comments i can make. the last time i checked this was still an open unmoderated forum . . .wait i think you told a few people that when they slammed you for your rude commetaries. hmm that makes it good old pkb doesnt it if it had been merely a comment to prevent an argument you could have been far more polite. upset whining nope just giving my viewpoint on the situation...oh thats what you consider to be upset and whining. imho it is you that whines everytime someone says anything against your unholy master the union. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. and when will you decide to turn all your liberties over to others roy why not just move to a socialist country and get it over with. why do you support organizations that restrict the freedom to work in a chosen profession because one does not want to abide by union rules or pay out monies to that organization its called a closed shop roy and its often kept me from having better jobs as i would be turned down for jobs i was the best candidate for because i would not join the union. oh wait others dont matter just your wallet right so your union masters are part of why im in the current financial condition im in because i applied for a job with the nickle plate line years ago and that was why i was turned down. i dont wont and i can say what ever i want as long as i dont violate my isps regulations. by all means. actually your posts of late are following your usual pattern and that is disappointing but it is what it is. tough roy. killfile me if it bothers you so much. i wont miss your whinings in support of your wallet or your insulting remarks about my current state of health. my postings do not violate those regulations. no they are the same tiresome budd gets insulted and pissed off claims he has been attcked throws the religon card blames all his problems on somebody or something then goes into a snit and stops posting for a bit. roy i was talking about unions not religion in case your early-onset senility made you forget. nor did i say i was insulted by a union or that one violated my beliefs. some time back i said a corrupt union screwed 1500 members over on two occasions including myself. i also stated my beliefs that unions are dinosaurs and no longer needed because they are usually more corrupt than anything. does everyone have to follow your lead about unions cant a naysayer post an opposing opinion btw did you ever consider that my decisions to stop posting for periods of time are for my benefit not yours i dont enjoy religious arguments not continuous insults like some folks do so i take a vacation from it. i didnt know i needed your permission. a few years back when i was offline for a rather long period several friends were concerned about my health so i now give notice of these vacations out of coinsideration for ther friendship. is that a bad thing to do i just dont want to be part of it. fine. i didnt twist your arm to force you to reply did i you chose to reply so the fault is yours. are we done now. thats up to you. we were once friends we got in a row i apologized but you dont seem to have forgiven or forgotten. i am the person i am. i try to be friends with everyone try to help where i can and i dont ask anyone to change to suit me nor will i change to suit anyone. i ask only for the same respect anyone else would seek to be accepted for who i am. i am opinionated and i am stubborn but you already knew that and have known it for years. i am in bad health and its getting worse so it or the medications may affect what i say or do thats a part of getting older. i try to proof read all my posts for that reason but i am human. and if you cant handle that then killfile me. your recent comments on my health and source of income were extremely insulting and proved only how important your own wallet is to you. but if i have more to say about unions i will say it. if you choose to reply then dont blame me. -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 .

From : roy

im sorry i must have missed the signs that saidclosed discussion not an open forum roy is the moderator around roy. no budd you missed the part that said go argue with somebody else but you really didnt miss it did ya you responded to my response to miles. i merely responded to your response to my post. im sorry that you find it upsetting that i choose not to argue with you. no i saw it read it and understood it to indicate you consider yourself to be superior to me and/or you think you can restrict whom i reply to or comments i can make. the last time i checked this was still an open unmoderated forum . . .wait i think you told a few people that when they slammed you for your rude commetaries. hmm that makes it good old pkb doesnt it by posting go argue with somebody else indicated i was superior to you or was attempting to restrict to whom you reply to how you twisted go argue with somebody else into anything else other than i didnt desire to get into a argument with you is beyond me. you must have been sitting at the keyboard for a couple of days just waiting. it would seem to me that you could have picked a better place to jump in you are looking pretty foolish imo this is going to be one of your better tantrums i can see it coming. tell ya what budd lets see if i was correct and you do run true to form. if it had been merely a comment to prevent an argument you could have been far more polite. here is where you are insulted. upset whining nope just giving my viewpoint on the situation...oh thats what you consider to be upset and whining. imho it is you that whines everytime someone says anything against your unholy master the union. go ahead and worship your god the union if you wish roy. and im insulting gee thanks budd i guess if they continue to screw whineing babies like you they cant be all bad. maybe ill join another. and when will you decide to turn all your liberties over to others roy why not just move to a socialist country and get it over with. why do you support organizations that restrict the freedom to work in a chosen profession because one does not want to abide by union rules or pay out monies to that organization its called a closed shop roy and its often kept me from having better jobs as i would be turned down for jobs i was the best candidate for because i would not join the union. oh wait others dont matter just your wallet right so your union masters are part of why im in the current financial condition im in because i applied for a job with the nickle plate line years ago and that was why i was turned down. heres where ya blame somebody or something. you decided where and for who you wanted to work. maybe they thought you couldnt cut it. i dont wont and i can say what ever i want as long as i dont violate my isps regulations. by all means. actually your posts of late are following your usual pattern and that is disappointing but it is what it is. tough roy. killfile me if it bothers you so much. i wont miss your whinings in support of your wallet or your insulting remarks about my current state of health. here we we go about you health. although you are too self centered and absorbed to notice there are others here who have had and continue to have health problems some im sure more serious than yours. most dont bother to mention them constantly they just continue on. hell you are unaware of my health problems arent ya see the difference between me and you is i live with them as best i can and dont complain about them. of course rolling a atv sorta brings them to the fore. but it is what it is. my postings do not violate those regulations. no they are the same tiresome budd gets insulted and pissed off claims he has been attcked throws the religon card blames all his problems on somebody or something then goes into a snit and stops posting for a bit. roy i was talking about unions not religion in case your early-onset senility made you forget. nor did i say i was insulted by a union or that one violated my beliefs. some time back i said a corrupt union screwed 1500 members over on two occasions including myself. i also stated my beliefs that unions are dinosaurs and no longer needed because they are usually more corrupt than anything. does everyone have to follow your lead about unions i would hope not. cant a naysayer post an opposing opinion sure all i said was go argue with somebody else but you decided to continue.; btw did you ever consider that my decisions to stop posting for periods of time are for my benefit not yours i dont enjoy religious arguments i cant believe you posted the above. not continuous insults like some folks do so i take a vacation from it. i didnt know i needed your permission. a few years back when i was offline for a rather long period several friends were concerned about my health so i now

From : miles

xclimation wrote if the assembly line workers dont show up to work no cars are built. if management doesnt show up to work everything runs fine. that is true only for the very short term. a rather absurd line of logic to carry any further although ive heard it often with production line manufacturing workers. .

From : mmc

unions arent the cause of the demise of any us industries i can think of. the cause is the complete lack of protection of our markets and trade by both parties of crooks in washington. ill admit that unions contribute to higher auto prices in order to maintain a livable wage for american workers. take away the union and the us auto industry might come back but the factories will be filled with immigrant labor. enough of this and it wont matter whether we build cars or not because there will be no middle class to buy them. im not union nor am i from a union family i just miss those days when there was some stability in the workplace and we didnt have to be union to get it. mmc tell this to lee iacocca. unions are usually the scapegoat for bad management. ford and gm automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of imagination. just look at the design and quality of these cars compared to foreign counterparts and one can see where the real problem is. if the assembly line workers dont show up to work no cars are built. if management doesnt show up to work everything runs fine. us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

did i read that right a livable wage youre joking right theres no such animal anymore. back when the monies of the us were backed by tangible material silver and/or gold a livable wage was far less than today. as a fact a spouse didnt have to work to help make ends meet . . .uh correction wave at each other in a semi-friendly manner. but of course the dollar in your pocket was really worth nearly a dollar back then also and purchased a true dollars worth of product or service. then to be more exchangeable with worthless foreign currencies we dropped those standards opening the way to rampant inflation with a government especially the spend-it-like-theres no-tomorrow liberals printing more fiat money to cover wasteful expenditures. so the government is at least partly to blame for those ridiculous union wages but it would help if everyone would demand our money to be returned to a physically supported status. btw clinton never balanced the budget as he and congress blew monies that should have gone toward the national debt on pet projects. budd unions arent the cause of the demise of any us industries i can think of. the cause is the complete lack of protection of our markets and trade by both parties of crooks in washington. ill admit that unions contribute to higher auto prices in order to maintain a livable wage for american workers. take away the union and the us auto industry might come back but the factories will be filled with immigrant labor. enough of this and it wont matter whether we build cars or not because there will be no middle class to buy them. im not union nor am i from a union family i just miss those days when there was some stability in the workplace and we didnt have to be union to get it. mmc tell this to lee iacocca. unions are usually the scapegoat for bad management. ford and gm automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of imagination. just look at the design and quality of these cars compared to foreign counterparts and one can see where the real problem is. if the assembly line workers dont show up to work no cars are built. if management doesnt show up to work everything runs fine. us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. .

From : miles

mmc wrote unions arent the cause of the demise of any us industries i can think of. entire industry or particular companies unions have causes many companies to fold or bail from particular markets or move much of their production overseas in order to compete in a global market. phelps dodge closed down several mines in arizona in the 80s as a very direct result of unions demanding high wages when the copper market was tumbling. .

From : wrench007 via carkb com u14318 uwe

william boyd wrote us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by bill p. if the us automakers concentrated on making what was good- better then best meaning a vehicle that would have few problems and last longer they could be top at their game too. instead they get something that works well and change it to something that is not yet proven. considering the cost of new vehicles a 3 year 36000 mile is not that good of an included warranty on non-consumable parts. the warrantys on earlier vehicles were 1yr. / 12000 miles but the cost of the vehicle was a lot less even with inflation adjustments. but then if vehicles last longer with less problems the mentality is that they would sell less vehicles -so i guess there is no point in that.--j -- message posted via http//www.carkb.com .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

aw gee miles you gave clear and factual evidence . . now they have to consider the possibility they could be wrong. ; and not only large industry has suffered. lets not forget the thousands of smaller manufacturers that going unionized has closed. budd mmc wrote unions arent the cause of the demise of any us industries i can think of. entire industry or particular companies unions have causes many companies to fold or bail from particular markets or move much of their production overseas in order to compete in a global market. phelps dodge closed down several mines in arizona in the 80s as a very direct result of unions demanding high wages when the copper market was tumbling. .

From : roy

mmc wrote unions arent the cause of the demise of any us industries i can think of. entire industry or particular companies unions have causes many companies to fold or bail from particular markets or move much of their production overseas in order to compete in a global market. phelps dodge closed down several mines in arizona in the 80s as a very direct result of unions demanding high wages when the copper market was tumbling. miles im curious. perhaps im missing something here and im sure that it has to do with my belonging to a couple of unions. having said that please explain to me how it is that folks always expect the union worker and only the union worker to take a pay cut. a union does not go in and demand anything it is negotiated between the employer and the union. the union and the employer agree to a wage structure benefit package health grievance procedure discipline procedure absenteeism policy safety vacations and the list goes on. the employer and the management team run the show. decisions are made by management not the union. if the decisions are good do the union workers get a bonus of course not. if they are poor decisions is that the unions fault it sure seems to be cut the employees wage is the cry. maybe im too old or stupid but i do not understand how bad decisions made in the board room have to be paid for by the employee. with regard to the phelps dodge i have no knowledge as to what the particulars were but as in any story there are two sides. a wall street theme does come to mind though. as i have said in the past some unions or union locals suck!! others seem to work well with the companies that employee them. let me make one point. unions are made up of individual members majority rules. if a member is unhappy with the representation he or she is receiving there is a procedure in place that he or she can use. it is called a ballot box you elect your representatives. further if enough members are unhappy there is decertification you vote the local out. roy .

From : miles

roy wrote miles im curious. perhaps im missing something here and im sure that it has to do with my belonging to a couple of unions. having said that please explain to me how it is that folks always expect the union worker and only the union worker to take a pay cut. who said always the union most of the time when cuts are needed theyre done on both sides. you are making a very common but flawed assumption. you are assuming that in all situations there is an equal balance of powere between the union and the corporation. when the balance of power is tipped either towards the union or towards the corporation one side wins the other loses. in many cases unions have gotten so big and so powerfull they squeeze a company right out of business or to take other measures such as moving operations elsewhere. normally market supply and demand of labor keeps things in balance and the pay benifits in check. if a company pays you too low then you vote with your feet. companies must compete for your talent or skill. in some markets this balance doesnt work and a union is needed to balance it. however if the power tips the scale to favor the union its every bit as bad for the general public as if its tipped in favor of the corporation. tell me do you feel none or very few union workers are over paid i know several such as a college kid making $18/hour to put saran wrap on meats because he belongs to the meat packers union. that is way above market value for that job and it costs the rest of us. with regard to the phelps dodge i have no knowledge as to what the particulars were but as in any story there are two sides. for decades copper prices had been climbing. unions negotiated decent yearly wage increases. global copper prices in the 70s and 80s fell sharply. the us copper mines could simply not give the 10% raise along with other benifits that the union wanted as they had done for years prior. phelps dodge said theyd have to agree to a 10% cut or the mines would close. the union felt they were bluffing and held their ground. the mines all closed and every single worker was out of a job. the mines still have never reopened. this is a classic mentality of so many unions. too much power that tips the balance away from natural market balance. .

From : miles

roy wrote that being the case i was reading today that gm union workers took some deep pay cuts in nov. now some of the top management are starting to take cuts. id bet that is a short time they come back wanting more from the workers. so if sales profits continue to fall and costs such as health insurance continue to skyrocket then the high benifits being paid out have to come down. you can stick to your union ways and say no way and force the company to move more overseas. your choice. here is where we sorta differ. a union and a company agree to certain stuff they sign a legal enforcable contract. how does the union become so powerfull that they squeeze a company if they are operating under a contract here you prove my point that you assume that the balance of power is equal between both sides such that a contract is negotiated equally. often thats simply not the case. you dont believe that some unions are powerfull enough to gain leverage in their favor when negotiating that contract maybe because my experience with unions have been constructiona couple of years and railroad where all is governed under the railway labor act. i dont see how with a contract any scale can be tipped unless it is after the fact as result of poor negotiation on either party. thats because you assume the terms of any contract negotiated is perfectly balanced and neither side has any bargaining leverage against the other. my family has been in the construction business for decades. unions can and have shut down many construction companies especially smaller ones that lack the capital to fight the big unions. hell miles to be honest some days everybody is overpaid. 18 bucks @hr to only wrap meat seems excessive. thats often what unions do because they gain enough power to leverage contracts in excess of market value. miles you be the company and ill be the union. we sit down with the goal of reaching a agreement. we bargain and do it with our eyes wide open there is give and take and compromise on both sides until a agreement is reached that both side can live with. you as management get a book or contract you use one half and i get to use the other to ensure that we both live up to the terms of that contract. where during the length of our contract do things get tipped as soon as the union gets so big and powerfull they control far more than just one company. they represent an industry. companies loose any leverage to negotiate an individual contract. how is a small grocery store supposed to be able to negotiate against the grocers or meat packers unions when they are but one store the balance is tipped to favor the union. unions also have a habit of shutting down non-union companies regardless of whether that companies benifits are already above the unions. how they subsidize union companies in an area allowing that company to bid jobs under market. they keep it up until the company folds up. makes no difference if the company already is paying above union wages. just a thought as i said i know nothing about phelps dodge. the union struck and then were locked out or the mines were closed. ill make the assumption that it was some time ago 10 or more years. if the mines had any value why didnt they reopen after the strike was broken with non union workers as i said a bit of wall street they ran for awhile with non-union workers who crossed the lines. people were shot at and deaths did occur. has a pretty good effect of keeping others from working. these mines are in small towns. when the mine dies the town dies. .

From : roy

roy wrote miles im curious. perhaps im missing something here and im sure that it has to do with my belonging to a couple of unions. having said that please explain to me how it is that folks always expect the union worker and only the union worker to take a pay cut. who said always the union pick a thread.g most of the time when cuts are needed theyre done on both sides. that being the case i was reading today that gm union workers took some deep pay cuts in nov. now some of the top management are starting to take cuts. id bet that is a short time they come back wanting more from the workers. you are making a very common but flawed assumption. you are assuming that in all situations there is an equal balance of powere between the union and the corporation. no not in the least when the balance of power is tipped either towards the union or towards the corporation one side wins the other loses. in many cases unions have gotten so big and so powerfull they squeeze a company right out of business or to take other measures such as moving operations elsewhere. here is where we sorta differ. a union and a company agree to certain stuff they sign a legal enforcable contract. how does the union become so powerfull that they squeeze a company if they are operating under a contract normally market supply and demand of labor keeps things in balance and the pay benifits in check. if a company pays you too low then you vote with your feet. companies must compete for your talent or skill. in some markets this balance doesnt work and a union is needed to balance it. however if the power tips the scale to favor the union its every bit as bad for the general public as if its tipped in favor of the corporation. maybe because my experience with unions have been constructiona couple of years and railroad where all is governed under the railway labor act. i dont see how with a contract any scale can be tipped unless it is after the fact as result of poor negotiation on either party. tell me do you feel none or very few union workers are over paid hell miles to be honest some days everybody is overpaid. 18 bucks @hr to only wrap meat seems excessive. miles you be the company and ill be the union. we sit down with the goal of reaching a agreement. we bargain and do it with our eyes wide open there is give and take and compromise on both sides until a agreement is reached that both side can live with. you as management get a book or contract you use one half and i get to use the other to ensure that we both live up to the terms of that contract. where during the length of our contract do things get tipped i know several such as a college kid making $18/hour to put saran wrap on meats because he belongs to the meat packers union. that is way above market value for that job and it costs the rest of us. with regard to the phelps dodge i have no knowledge as to what the particulars were but as in any story there are two sides. for decades copper prices had been climbing. unions negotiated decent yearly wage increases. global copper prices in the 70s and 80s fell sharply. the us copper mines could simply not give the 10% raise along with other benifits that the union wanted as they had done for years prior. phelps dodge said theyd have to agree to a 10% cut or the mines would close. the union felt they were bluffing and held their ground. the mines all closed and every single worker was out of a job. the mines still have never reopened. this is a classic mentality of so many unions. too much power that tips the balance away from natural market balance. just a thought as i said i know nothing about phelps dodge. the union struck and then were locked out or the mines were closed. ill make the assumption that it was some time ago 10 or more years. if the mines had any value why didnt they reopen after the strike was broken with non union workers as i said a bit of wall street .

From : roy

roy wrote that being the case i was reading today that gm union workers took some deep pay cuts in nov. now some of the top management are starting to take cuts. id bet that is a short time they come back wanting more from the workers. so if sales profits continue to fall and costs such as health insurance continue to skyrocket then the high benifits being paid out have to come down. shouldnt they be negotiated at the end of the existing contract you can stick to your union ways and say no way and force the company to move more overseas. your choice. it is a global market now most are overseas and have been for quite some time. here is where we sorta differ. a union and a company agree to certain stuff they sign a legal enforcable contract. how does the union become so powerfull that they squeeze a company if they are operating under a contract here you prove my point that you assume that the balance of power is equal between both sides such that a contract is negotiated equally. often thats simply not the case. you dont believe that some unions are powerfull enough to gain leverage in their favor when negotiating that contract maybe because my experience with unions have been constructiona couple of years and railroad where all is governed under the railway labor act. i dont see how with a contract any scale can be tipped unless it is after the fact as result of poor negotiation on either party. thats because you assume the terms of any contract negotiated is perfectly balanced and neither side has any bargaining leverage against the other. my family has been in the construction business for decades. unions can and have shut down many construction companies especially smaller ones that lack the capital to fight the big unions. hell miles to be honest some days everybody is overpaid. 18 bucks @hr to only wrap meat seems excessive. thats often what unions do because they gain enough power to leverage contracts in excess of market value. miles you be the company and ill be the union. we sit down with the goal of reaching a agreement. we bargain and do it with our eyes wide open there is give and take and compromise on both sides until a agreement is reached that both side can live with. you as management get a book or contract you use one half and i get to use the other to ensure that we both live up to the terms of that contract. where during the length of our contract do things get tipped as soon as the union gets so big and powerfull they control far more than just one company. they represent an industry. companies loose any leverage to negotiate an individual contract. how is a small grocery store supposed to be able to negotiate against the grocers or meat packers unions when they are but one store the balance is tipped to favor the union. miles where is everybodys indignation when a company like walmart comes in and puts 100 or more small companys or stores out of operation there is none unless it affects them personally. but that is okay sure you get a bunch of jobs mostly part time with zilch for benifits. unions also have a habit of shutting down non-union companies regardless of whether that companies benifits are already above the unions. how they subsidize union companies in an area allowing that company to bid jobs under market. they keep it up until the company folds up. makes no difference if the company already is paying above union wages. how about the corperation that deliberatly wrecks part of itself a made a movie about the practice called wall street with douglas as the lead. read up on the eastern airline / continental airline horror show. i believe that was run by a guy named lorenzo out of texas. or one i was involved with timothy mellon of that wonderful mellon family of pa and his deal. he managed to wreck 3 railroads here in new england and newyork. just a thought as i said i know nothing about phelps dodge. the union struck and then were locked out or the mines were closed. ill make the assumption that it was some time ago 10 or more years. if the mines had any value why didnt they reopen after the strike was broken with non union workers as i said a bit of wall street they ran for awhile with non-union workers who crossed the lines. people were shot at and deaths did occur. has a pretty good effect of keeping others from working. these mines are in small towns. when the mine dies the town dies. do you wonder how much of a right off that idle mine is .

From : xclimation

us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. i think this thread has gotten away from the original argument. the original argument was ford and gms unions. i spoke with a gm executive on monday. i asked him basically his take on the problems. he told me that gm and ford were pension heavy. i said do you mean union workers he said mostly yes but not necessarily. i next asked him what his finance department is doing wrong. he looked at me puzzled and also with a you got me look at the same time. this look is hard to explain. i said isnt your finance department responsible for investing the pensions he said well yes but we are going to have to look at renegotiating our contracts with our unions and changing our new hires pension plans. one of my associates chimed in i hope social security definately survives then. we left the conversation at that time. when i was younger i was a union worker. i was under the railway labor act. i am now on the other side of the fence in an executive position. i am astonished so many times on how clueless other executives and mid level management is as to the plight of the front line worker. alot of failures are blamed on the front line worker when in fact; the failure is in leadership. the example of the electrical workers union is a great example. the poster said that the workers and shop stewards were sabotaging work to get down time. the is a failure of leadership. the management allowed the union to lead. also maybe the management needs to make the job more imaginative and challenging. maybe the management needs to learn just exactly what an electrician does. someone once asked me advice free advice on the disatisfaction on postal workers. i said to them why are you asking me have you asked the workers the answer was no. i got a call from this same person 2 months later and i was told that they tried to ask the workers questions through questionaires and surveys with no avail. they next finally decided to get up off their rear ends and actually ask the postal workers one on one what problems were. the responses were overwhelming that the workers felt that supervisors were clueless and extremely lazy. the workers also felt that supervisors were imcompetent in handle problems whether small or large. the workers would try to handle problems on their own as a result then the supervisors would discipline the workers for handling the problem. i see this go on very often in many industries. ive learned through the military and union experience that ultimately responsibilty and accountability falls on leadership. when the chain of command breaks down and there is no contigency in place; and everyone starts winging it. the problems begin. so in ford and gms case and other cases make the union the scapegoat if you must but when you stand back and look at things from a distance and hindsight ultimately there is a failure in leadership. in ford and gms case i see a failure in the leadership to get on the engineer and design teams about unimaginative design and engineering. also a failure to connect with drivers. .

From : roy

us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. i think this thread has gotten away from the original argument. the original argument was ford and gms unions. i spoke with a gm executive on monday. i asked him basically his take on the problems. he told me that gm and ford were pension heavy. i said do you mean union workers he said mostly yes but not necessarily. i next asked him what his finance department is doing wrong. he looked at me puzzled and also with a you got me look at the same time. this look is hard to explain. i said isnt your finance department responsible for investing the pensions he said well yes but we are going to have to look at renegotiating our contracts with our unions and changing our new hires pension plans. one of my associates chimed in i hope social security definately survives then. we left the conversation at that time. when i was younger i was a union worker. i was under the railway labor act. railroad or airline were you vested i am now on the other side of the fence in an executive position. i am astonished so many times on how clueless other executives and mid level management is as to the plight of the front line worker. alot of failures are blamed on the front line worker when in fact; the failure is in leadership. the example of the electrical workers union is a great example. the poster said that the workers and shop stewards were sabotaging work to get down time. the is a failure of leadership. the management allowed the union to lead. also maybe the management needs to make the job more imaginative and challenging. maybe the management needs to learn just exactly what an electrician does. someone once asked me advice free advice on the disatisfaction on postal workers. i said to them why are you asking me have you asked the workers the answer was no. i got a call from this same person 2 months later and i was told that they tried to ask the workers questions through questionaires and surveys with no avail. they next finally decided to get up off their rear ends and actually ask the postal workers one on one what problems were. the responses were overwhelming that the workers felt that supervisors were clueless and extremely lazy. the workers also felt that supervisors were imcompetent in handle problems whether small or large. the workers would try to handle problems on their own as a result then the supervisors would discipline the workers for handling the problem. i see this go on very often in many industries. i went through this while employed by amtrak. they tried the survey approach and found that what was gleaned was unacceptable. so they hired a outside company to come in and do interviews. think for a second how does a management team become so far out of touch with its workforce that they had to hire sombody to find out what the hell was wrong they didnt or wouldnt believe the folks they hired. end result of years of bs a congressional investigation brought about by the unions and as a result of the investigations and hearing a gao study. all that finally brought about change a almost totally revamped management team. ive learned through the military and union experience that ultim

From : miles

budd cochran wrote btw clinton never balanced the budget as he and congress blew monies that should have gone toward the national debt on pet projects. thats true. there never was any surplus. clinton wh projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. trouble is during clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under bush sr and bush jr.. .

From : ron

william boyd wrote us auto makers may become extinct caused by unions http//www.nysun.com/article/26874 unless the underlying problems are fixed american automakers will always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. the 14 plant closings announced by ford last week wont actually be implemented for several years and the 25000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the jobs bank where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract. bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. federal judges can abrogate contracts. but threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the united auto workers is another. a strike or even work-to-rule would be potentially fatal leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier the bankrupt delphi corp. has caused gm to commit a substantial chunk of cash for delphis pay and benefits - even as gm itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005. miracles do happen. the no-longer-so-big three are starting to produce some fine products. when it was at deaths door in the 1980s ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability. alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. even chryslers bailout was only a temporary palliative; its now part of daimler. unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are relevant to the 21st century the prospect is that some day the big six will once again become the big three - and headquartered somewhere else than detroit. bill p. i believe this subject is so complicated that no one here or maybe anywhere can really provide a complete and true answer. i think we are also looking at world politics that go back a hundred years or more. i do know one thing....... state politics have helped to kill or nurture a lot of business in certain areas of the country. in new york state for example republic steel once had a buffalo steel plant. that plant paid more in state/local taxes than all their other steel plants combined. another nail in that plants coffin was japanese steel which was subsidized by the japanese government. btw this republic plant produced a very high quality steel used in car springs rifle barrels etc.. that plant closed its doors in the early 80s. that closing cant be totally blamed on unions. also fwiw that plant had just built a new blast furnace considered the most modern of its kind. after that plant closed up the furnace was sold to the chinese who moved in and took it apart and put it back together in china where it is still in use today. i know this is true because my father-in-law was asst. supt. eng. and helped design that furnace. as for my own experience ........ i used to be the application eng. mngr. for an electronic components company. we sold a great deal of components to us auto makers all 3. i remember one of the 3 wanting a silent electromechanical relay to use in their intermittent windshield wipers. only 1 company in the world made it. i sat in on 1 week of meetings in japan where the jap manufacturer tried to convince the us auto maker that this was not the proper relay for this application. the auto maker placed orders anyway because a new relay would have taken quite a while to make and get required approvals. that move really backfired later on for the auto maker. the reason the us auto maker had to have this relay so quickly was so ridiculous i dont even want to go into it here suffice to say it had to do with a board members wife hating the clicking noise in her personal car. i have dozens of idiotic engineering stories like this wonder why american cars were once perceived as junk . can this sort of thing be blamed on unions this sort of thing did not help sell cars! .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote btw clinton never balanced the budget as he and congress blew monies that should have gone toward the national debt on pet projects. thats true. there never was any surplus. clinton wh projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. trouble is during clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under bush sr and bush jr.. lol more horseshit. funny how the war budget is not included here. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote budd cochran wrote btw clinton never balanced the budget as he and congress blew monies that should have gone toward the national debt on pet projects. thats true. there never was any surplus. clinton wh projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. trouble is during clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under bush sr and bush jr.. lol more horseshit. funny how the war budget is not included here. look it up tbone. budget increases were 4% under bush sr. 8% per year under clinton and 4% under bush jr. this years increase will be about 2.5% over the prior. add in the war budget if you want. still under 4. go ahead tbone look up the average increases especially under clinton...ill wait. .

From : miles

tbone wrote play with your fuzzy math all you want miles. the bottom line says it all. fuzzy math budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. they are what they are. 8% increases per year under clinton 4% under bush sr. and bush jr. and this years increase is 2.5% or 3% if you add in the war budget. that tbone is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. .

From : tbone

play with your fuzzy math all you want miles. the bottom line says it all. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote budd cochran wrote btw clinton never balanced the budget as he and congress blew monies that should have gone toward the national debt on pet projects. thats true. there never was any surplus. clinton wh projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. trouble is during clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under bush sr and bush jr.. lol more horseshit. funny how the war budget is not included here. look it up tbone. budget increases were 4% under bush sr. 8% per year under clinton and 4% under bush jr. this years increase will be about 2.5% over the prior. add in the war budget if you want. still under 4. go ahead tbone look up the average increases especially under clinton...ill wait. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote play with your fuzzy math all you want miles. the bottom line says it all. fuzzy math budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. they are what they are. 8% increases per year under clinton 4% under bush sr. and bush jr. and this years increase is 2.5% or 3% if you add in the war budget. that tbone is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. what was the national dept a year before clinton left office and what is it now http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote tbone wrote play with your fuzzy math all you want miles. the bottom line says it all. fuzzy math budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. they are what they are. 8% increases per year under clinton 4% under bush sr. and bush jr. and this years increase is 2.5% or 3% if you add in the war budget. that tbone is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. what was the national dept a year before clinton left office and what is it now http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm were talking budget increases and you cant argue your own fuzzy math. instead you bring up the debt. lol. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote play with your fuzzy math all you want miles. the bottom line says it all. fuzzy math budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. they are what they are. 8% increases per year under clinton 4% under bush sr. and bush jr. and this years increase is 2.5% or 3% if you add in the war budget. that tbone is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different. what was the national dept a year before clinton left office and what is it now http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm were talking budget increases and you cant argue your own fuzzy math. instead you bring up the debt. lol. no i was always talking about the dept. you were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. but since you mention it funny how clinton can raise spending 8% per year make minimal to no cuts on important social programs and still reverse the national dept while your god increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. i did notice however that billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in alaska by its republican congressman and most of the people there dont even want it. even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. i guess that he doesnt have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the right wing pork barrel spending. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote no i was always talking about the dept. you were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. but since you mention it funny how clinton can raise spending 8% per year make minimal to no cuts on important social programs and still reverse the national dept sorry tbone the national debt increased each year clinton was in office. you keep buying into the projections of the time and believe there was a surplus of $s sitting in a huge vault somewhere. increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. important social programs to whomever is on the receiving end they are always important. i did notice however that billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in alaska by its republican congressman and most of the people there dont even want it. billions you read too many leftist propaganda headlines. the mat-su valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of anchorage. this bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way around the cook inlet/knik arm. it is not a bridge to nowhere as the propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region. even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. i guess that he doesnt have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the right wing pork barrel spending. you wont allow him to veto anything. you want those needed social programs. if bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your liberal ilk cries foul every time. your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. you really think dems are low on the pork barrel spending ladder lol .

From : tbone

tbone wrote no i was always talking about the dept. you were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. but since you mention it funny how clinton can raise spending 8% per year make minimal to no cuts on important social programs and still reverse the national dept sorry tbone the national debt increased each year clinton was in office. you keep buying into the projections of the time and believe there was a surplus of $s sitting in a huge vault somewhere. lol wrong. what i saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office go look it up. oh never mind ill do it for you http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until bush jr took office. spin all you want miles the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math on the bottom line. increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. important social programs to whomever is on the receiving end they are always important. this is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really dont give a damn about anyone but yourself. i did notice however that billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in alaska by its republican congressman and most of the people there dont even want it. billions you read too many leftist propaganda headlines. the mat-su valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of anchorage. oh yea astronomical growth lol. this bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way around the cook inlet/knik arm. it is not a bridge to nowhere as the propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region. there is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. the bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. i guess that he doesnt have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the right wing pork barrel spending. you wont allow him to veto anything. hahahahahaha how am i going to stop him. he does pretty much whatever he wants regardless of public opinion. you want those needed social programs. if bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your liberal ilk cries foul every time. more bullshit. he is cutting away at those social programs no veto needed especially with the right controlling congress. you watch way to much fox . your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. once again you talk out of you selfish ass. hear that budd the money being spent to help keep you alive is nothing more than pork barrel spending. you really think dems are low on the pork barrel spending ladder lol at least the dems pork barrel spending helps people to live not just make some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote lol wrong. what i saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office go look it up. oh never mind ill do it for you http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until bush jr took office. spin all you want miles the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math on the bottom line. numbers you showed some individuals own personal graph. want numbers heres some for ya. http//www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm look under prior years. please show me where the debt ever stopped increasing. wheres the surplus tbone i made the statement that the debt increased every year clinton was in office contrary to your bs and most liberals who have no clue. my statement is correct! can you spin it to show me where it didnt increase every single year and where the surplus is this is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really dont give a damn about anyone but yourself. and you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone needs and problems. there is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. the bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. thats your opinion based on the fact youve never even been there. whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should come last when developing a region. thats a common method and one that causes massive problems. the valley is growing and the ferry wont handle the demands for the already planned communities. more bullshit. he is cutting away at those social programs no veto needed especially with the right controlling congress. you watch way to much fox . he is how is he cutting anything he doesnt write spending bills. you need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded ones for you! at least the dems pork barrel spending helps people to live not just make some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere. thats complete bull. lets have a look at who the most well known pork barrel spenders are. top of the list robert byrd of w. virginia. his nickname from waste watch groups such as http//cagw.org/ was king of pork. hillary clinton for her defense of the absurd cdbg project. tammy baldwin of wisconsin who on her own website proudly brags about how much $s shes won for the state for various projects none were to help anyones health or assist the poor. tbone dems are full of pork barrel spending. they have been for decades. your wishfull bs that dems are all great is a bunch of crap. the richest pigs in congress are mostly dems. the poorest of congress are mostly reps. get a clue! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote lol wrong. what i saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office go look it up. oh never mind ill do it for you http//www.cedarcomm.com/stevelm1/usdebt.htm notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until bush jr took office. spin all you want miles the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math on the bottom line. numbers you showed some individuals own personal graph. want numbers heres some for ya. http//www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm did you actually look at those numbers miles. they kinda go along with the chart. hell bush as caused greater increases in a month than clinton did in a whole year. look under prior years. please show me where the debt ever stopped increasing. wheres the surplus tbone i made the statement that the debt increased every year clinton was in office contrary to your bs and most liberals who have no clue. my statement is correct! can you spin it to show me where it didnt increase every single year and where the surplus is lol it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. how is that possible if bushy baby is so conservative. sounds like fuzzy math to me. this is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really dont give a damn about anyone but yourself. and you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone needs and problems. really where did i say that the problem miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with. there is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. the bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending. thats your opinion based on the fact youve never even been there. oh yea miles i forgot some of your 10000000 relatives must live in the area lol. whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should come last when developing a region. thats a common method and one that causes massive problems. the valley is growing and the ferry wont handle the demands for the already planned communities. what is the need for these planned communities. where are these people going to work why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year you whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high you are too funny miles. more bullshit. he is cutting away at those social programs no veto needed especially with the right controlling congress. you watch way to much fox . he is how is he cutting anything he doesnt write spending bills. you need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded ones for you! lol feel free to stick your head in the sand miles. like i said he doesnt have to his right wing majority in congress is doing it for him. all he has to do is sign his name and ignore the right wing pork that goes along with it. tbone dems are full of pork barrel spending. they have been for decades. your wishfull bs that dems are all great is a bunch of crap. the richest pigs in congress are mostly dems. the poorest of congress are mostly reps. get a clue! but the reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have and yet the most rapid increases in the national dept are all under republican presidents and the projected highest under this one. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote did you actually look at those numbers miles. they kinda go along with the chart. hell bush as caused greater increases in a month than clinton did in a whole year. debt went up every single year clinton was in office. got it yet tbone or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses lol it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. how is that possible if bushy baby is so conservative. sounds like fuzzy math to me. how can there have been a surplus during clintons years when every single year of his term spending exceeded revenue dang liberal spin and you bought it and wont give up on it even when proven wrong by your own numbers graph. really where did i say that the problem miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with. greedy i work for a living and am paid for it. just cause your ilk wants some of my money doesnt make me greedy. makes you jealous and lame. what is the need for these planned communities. more than just a ferry boat. where are these people going to work in anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses. why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year if thats true then so is anchorage. were talking about a region just opposite across the knik arm. maybe 10 miles from anchorage. the current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive the 70 miles or so around. now possibly youre talking about the other planned bridge out of ketchikan. that city is a very rapidly growing city. i dont know what you mean by only a month of warm weather there. it doesnt get alot of snow. mostly rain. ketchikan is backed by mountains. little room to grow except across the channel. whats more the airport is on the opposite side and the only way is by ferry. that airport is rapidly becoming a busy place. you whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high you are too funny miles. so anchorage or ketchikan should be kept from growing all time high were talking about far southern alaska tbone. not the artic circle. but the reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have ah so you excuse the pork barrel democrats because they dont claim to be responsible anyways. now thats some funny stuff right there!! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote did you actually look at those numbers miles. they kinda go along with the chart. hell bush as caused greater increases in a month than clinton did in a whole year. debt went up every single year clinton was in office. got it yet tbone or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses lol perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. any way you try and spin it the dept is at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase and the only ones close to this rate of increase was reagan and bush sr. you keep claiming that bush jr only increased spending by 3.5 while clinton was closer to 10 but the rate of increase curve in the national dept does not support either one of your claims unless of course the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to. lol it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. how is that possible if bushy baby is so conservative. sounds like fuzzy math to me. how can there have been a surplus during clintons years when every single year of his term spending exceeded revenue dang liberal spin and you bought it and wont give up on it even when proven wrong by your own numbers graph. creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. who knows where the money went do you the graph does indicate that the rate of increase was substancially reduced during the clinton years which you also refuse to look at lol. really where did i say that the problem miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with. greedy i work for a living and am paid for it. lol yea miles you work but you decide how much you are paid and it is the amount you pay yourself compared to your workers and the complete lack of concern for your workers that makes you greedy. just cause your ilk wants some of my money doesnt make me greedy. makes you jealous and lame. justification is a wonderful thing even when it is complete bs. what is the need for these planned communities. more than just a ferry boat. that is not what i asked. what is the need for these planned communities existance and btw more than one boat can be used. where are these people going to work in anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses. again why build there and if people want to live there then they should deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and local taxes. why should my money be used for crap like that. why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year if thats true then so is anchorage. were talking about a region just opposite across the knik arm. maybe 10 miles from anchorage. the current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive the 70 miles or so around. i am not talking about anchorage but even there how many outdoor swimming pools do you see in peoples back yards. now possibly youre talking about the other planned bridge out of ketchikan. that city is a very rapidly growing city. i dont know what you mean by only a month of warm weather there. it doesnt get alot of snow. mostly rain. ketchikan is backed by mountains. little room to grow except across the channel. whats more the airport is on the opposite side and the only way is by ferry. that airport is rapidly becoming a busy place. what is your definition of rapidly and if the area is rapidly growing then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact fees. you whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high you are too funny miles. so anchorage or ketchikan should be kept from growing all time high were talking about far southern alaska tbone. not the artic circle. why should i support this growth how does it benefit me in actuality it hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. if people want to live their they should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently there. but the reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have ah so you excuse the pork barrel democrats because they dont claim to be responsible anyways. now thats some funny stuff right there!! it doesnt excuse anything just puts things into perspective. the right keeps making the claim that they are the responsible party which is being proven to be complete bs. while cutting medicade and welfare they still manage to raise the dept to record levels at record rates of increase. and where is the money going to the wealthy of course. -- if at first you dont

From : miles

tbone wrote lol perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. so you are still in denial about the debt going up every year clinton was in office you are still in denial that since spending exceeded revenue each and every year clinton was in office there was no surplus your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to bush. unless of course the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to. you have no clue as to how the gov. gets its money. you seem to think its all a matter of tax rates. raise the rates they get more $s lower them and they get less right tbone you need to take another look beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. current revenues are at their highest levels ever. the deficit is not from too low of tax rates as you seem to believe. lol it is hard to say where the surplus went how could there ever have been a surplus when by your own figures spending exceeded revenue every year clinton was in office. you are still in complete denial and will never ever admit the truth even when faced with it from your own figures. are you big enough to admit there was no surplus how is that possible if bushy baby is so conservative. bush is no conservative. never has been. sounds like fuzzy math to me. your fuzzy math which has led you to believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending all of clintons years. creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. oh thats true. creative accounting is why you still believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending. who knows where the money went do you the graph does indicate that the rate of increase was substancially reduced during the clinton years which you also refuse to look at lol. instead of admitting you are wrong about the existance of any surplus you try to water it down spin it a bit as above. i told you months ago that the rate of increase was reduced not the deficit. your response was more ranting about a surplus and how i was wrong. well tbone you ready to admit that there was no surplus so we can move on to other subjects that is not what i asked. what is the need for these planned communities existance and btw more than one boat can be used. i see. in the perfect liberal world there will be no growth in any region because its not needed. communities are built because of the demand for them. more people = the need for more housing. again why build there and if people want to live there then they should deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and local taxes. why should my money be used for crap like that. so you admit to being greedy with your money. do you drive on the highways around your area that were paid for by federal $s oh ya they were all state funded huh youre a dang liberal hypocite tbone. i am not talking about anchorage but even there how many outdoor swimming pools do you see in peoples back yards. what does that have to do with anything are you saying people shouldnt live in alaska tell us tbone what is it you are trying to say about growth in alaska what is your definition of rapidly and if the area is rapidly growing then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact fees. what complete bs. every state in the country gets federal highway funds yearly. the vast majority of this countries highways and bridges are built with the help of federal $s. i ask again what is your beef with growth in alaska vs. anywhere else why should i support this growth how does it benefit me in actuality it hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. if people want to live their they should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently there. there you go again with your own greed. spend only if it benifits tbone. you benifit from federal $s spent in your area although you might try to deny that. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote lol perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. so you are still in denial about the debt going up every year clinton was in office you are still in denial that since spending exceeded revenue each and every year clinton was in office there was no surplus your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to bush. it is not a defense just a response to your constant whining about how the dept didnt do down with clinton when the real problem is how fast it is going up with bush. unless of course the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to. you have no clue as to how the gov. gets its money. you seem to think its all a matter of tax rates. lol it is a matter of taxes. raise the rates they get more $s lower them and they get less right tbone for the most part in todays world thats correct. you need to take another look beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. current revenues are at their highest levels ever. the deficit is not from too low of tax rates as you seem to believe. more spin and fuzzy definitions. if current revenues are at their highest levels ever and bush i

From : tbone

like i said miles you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply says that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote if tax revenues are at their highest rates ever and by your provided link the are not tell me which of clintons years were tax revenues ever higher than they are now you refuse to answer how there could be a surplus if every year under clinton there was deficit spending your figures but at least we agree on them. instead you keep trying to turn the discussion to bush. lets finish the current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus. .

From : miles

tbone wrote it is not a defense just a response to your constant whining about how the dept didnt do down with clinton when the real problem is how fast it is going up with bush. bush wasnt the discussion until you changed the subject to avoid answering a question. ok so its not a defense of yours. then are your ready to admit there could never have been any surplus if you still hold onto your claim of such then please explain how. lol it is a matter of taxes. whats that mean tbone tax rates or what raise the rates they get more $s lower them and they get less right tbone for the most part in todays world thats correct. then you are very wrong and is why you are so confused on this. tax rates were cut right take a look tbone. tax revenues are now at their highest rates ever. you still think its simply a matter of tax rates youre too simplistic in your thinking and is why you have the views you do. tax revenues are up now!!!! they are at their highest levels ever tbone. now can you understand how it all works now lets see an actual answer instead of more of your typical spin. look at the total tax revenues in years 1999 through 2003 here. they increased every year despite the tax cuts. you keep trying to argue based on your own personal bias rather than anything factual. do some more research on your own and look back further if you desire. revenues have been increasing tbone. not decreasing as you seem to think tax cuts would do. no clue tbone!! http//www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/tfdb/tftemplate.cfmtopic2id=90 ill give you a hint tbone. private sector spending has far more to do with total tax revenues than tax rates themselves. as private sector spending goes up then revenues go up. then why did the republican party nominate him for his current postition are they just a bunch of idiots or did they need a fall guy while they rape the middle class to feed the rich ask them. fact remains that bush is not and has never ever been a conservative. how do you think the drop in the rate of increase happened without a surplus now that takes the cake tbone!! you are now attempting to equate a drop in the rate of increase to mean there was a surplus. lol. surplus means more revenue than spending. lower rate of increase means just that. the two were closer but still spending exceeded revenue. sheesh youre confused on this one!! lower rate of increase means surplus care to explain your math to show a surplus while still having deficit spending no what im saying is that despite your bullshit the weather there is not shangri-la as you would have us believe so people should only live where you deem it to be shangri-la where exactly is this magical paradise of yours that everyone must live so as to appease you for many it most certainly is shangri-la. that is exactly why they live there. as for your notion that people should only live in moderate climates you are speaking complete bs. anchorage and ketchikan have warmer climates than most of the northeastern us. whats more is your notion about oil consumption. most up there heat with coal wood being 2nd. oil is down on the list below even electricity. do some research before you try to make politically biased arguments. sorry miles but this isnt the same thing and you know it. i have no beef with the growth but the cost of that growth should be supported by those benefiting from it such as the builders and the owners. btw there is a big difference between federal aid and the free ride that this bridge is. oh so now you think bridges should only be built with state $s you must be aware there are numerous bridges federally funded all over the country. maine kentucky and minnisota are all currently building federally funded bridges and theyre not the only ones. but alaska is different because tbones gotta jump on the liberal band wagon. yea right. at is more to your tune just like this bridge federal tax dollars to make the rich richer and a right wing politician look good. youre the one asking how it benifits you as if thats the requirement. pure greed on your part there tbone. your area all built up before federal funds arrived huh then no need for federal funds now right then why has there been considerable discussion on a bridge over the currituck sound to be paid for with federal funds .

From : tbone

raise the rates they get more $s lower them and they get less right tbone for the most part in todays world thats correct. then you are very wrong and is why you are so confused on this. tax rates were cut right take a look tbone. tax revenues are now at their highest rates ever. you still think its simply a matter of tax rates youre too simplistic in your thinking and is why you have the views you do. tax revenues are up now!!!! they are at their highest levels ever tbone. now can you understand how it all works this once again did not answer the question so ill ask again. if tax revenues are at their highest rates ever and by your provided link the are not and bush has only increased spending by about 1/3 of what you claim clinton did how is the dept at record levels and increasing at record rates the rest of your crap is just that and nothing more now either answer the question or shut the hell up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote if tax revenues are at their highest rates ever and by your provided link the are not tell me which of clintons years were tax revenues ever higher than they are now you refuse to answer how there could be a surplus if every year under clinton there was deficit spending your figures but at least we agree on them. instead you keep trying to turn the discussion to bush. lets finish the current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus. .

From : miles

tbone wrote like i said miles you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply says that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country. iows youre too small of a person to admit you were flat out wrong about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. instead you change the subject to bush. care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit considering that revenues have gone up not down. instead of answering you reply with your question above. tbone if you do not understand what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter wont be understood by yourself. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote like i said miles you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply says that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country. iows youre too small of a person to admit you were flat out wrong about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. instead you change the subject to bush. i must say that it is funny to watch you twist and spin on the rope that you hung yourself on. you cannot answer a simple question based on the facts that you claimed to be true and are now trying to spin it into something else. please show exactly where i made all these claims about clintons surplus. but since you brought it up http//archives.cnn.com/2000/allpolitics/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ now if you want to argue do it with cnn and as i said creative accounting can make gains look like losses and losses look like gains just look at enron. then you can add the fact that bush and the republican party based their tax cuts on that clinton surplus.... care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit considering that revenues have gone up not down. instead of answering you reply with your question above. the revenues are not much more than what clinton had and with creative accounting are they really valid. if you go back to your link and look at 2001 2002 and 2003 you will see that 2001 was pretty good but 2002 had a significant drop and 2003 still has not caught up to 2001 and this is with the creative accounting. so much for those record gains. i guess that the expenses have gone up much more than the increases in revenues. so much for your bogus reduced spending increases by bush and come to think of it that is specifically what i laughed at you about. tbone if you do not understand what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter wont be understood by yourself. could you get any more lame. i fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. pay scales are lower many high tech jobs are outsourced the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in even with the risk of terrorism which further reduces the average pay rate for hard working americans and investors tend to invest in the very companies that outsource their high paying jobs which does the exact opposite of what the right claimed it would do. now are you going to answer the question or run and hide again if the revenues are at record highs and bush is holding increases to about 1/3 of what clinton was how is it possible that the deficit is also at record highs and at a record rate of increase now be a man for a change and answer the question or just stfu for a change. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote please show exactly where i made all these claims about clintons surplus. you have stated over and over there was a surplus. yet each and every year clinton was in office there was deficit spending. but since you brought it up http//archives.cnn.com/2000/allpolitics/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ talk about creative accounting. none the less the gov.s own records show spending exceeded revenue every year. there was no surplus and you continue to try to argue there was. it was only a projection. could you get any more lame. i fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. pay scales are lower many high tech jobs are outsourced the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in even with the risk of terrorism you think raising taxes at this time would help the economy help create jobs help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things for our society if so care to explain your resoning as for illegals i agree with you there but its not just the reps. dems especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates to them. .

From : miles

tbone wrote some nonsense i realized your problem tbone. you have confused budget surplus or budget deficit with actual spending vs. revenues. take a look here. http//www.toptips.com/debthistory.htm tell me what years in which clinton was in office did the debt go down indicating a surplus creative accounting huh will you ever realize there never was any surplus based on actual revenues vs. spending you have yet to show me any actual revenue and spending figures to support your continued claim of some surplus. just a cnn story that says there was. sorry tbone ill take the actual figures of what was spent vs. revenues taken in during those years. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote please show exactly where i made all these claims about clintons surplus. you have stated over and over there was a surplus. yet each and every year clinton was in office there was deficit spending. like i said show me where. just because you say it doesnt make it true. but since you brought it up http//archives.cnn.com/2000/allpolitics/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ talk about creative accounting. none the less the gov.s own records show spending exceeded revenue every year. there was no surplus and you continue to try to argue there was. it was only a projection. it was not a projection it was a budget surplus. unfortunately there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didnt. btw who was and still is in control in congress could you get any more lame. i fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. pay scales are lower many high tech jobs are outsourced the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in even with the risk of terrorism you think raising taxes at this time would help the economy help create jobs help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things for our society if so care to explain your resoning you keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised they were lowered and your own information that you happened to delete imagine that shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. the point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. the record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education. as for illegals i agree with you there but its not just the reps. dems especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates to them. care to back that up. btw im still waiting for that answer. now who is the one trying to change the subject why the same person it always was you! but ill ask again so that you can delete it again. if these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues which is false and bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim clinton did then why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote like i said show me where. just because you say it doesnt make it true. i did show you the numbers. ive shown you the numbers many times over the months. some from the gov.s own website. in fact there isnt a single credible source that shows a single year where revenues exceeded spending during clintons years. care to show me a credible source which shows yearly totals for actual revenues and spending through those years that show a surplus dont show me projections just actual figures. it was not a projection it was a budget surplus. unfortunately there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didnt. btw who was and still is in control in congress ahhh....at least you now admit it was a budget surplus and not actual $s spent or received. so now you also admit that congress did not stay within the budget....guess what tbone that means no surplus ever existed. there was never a time that the deficit went down except on someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper. so all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent too funny! you keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised they were lowered and your own information that you happened to delete imagine that shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. the point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. the drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop than the tax rate drop. revenues go up and down as the economy does far more than from rate changes. you really think keeping high taxes when the economy is sagging is a good idea federal revenues would have been lower not higher as you keep assuming. you fail to realize that tax revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. opposite of your absurd logic. the record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. it means nothing of the sort. what it does mean is that spending is too high. you keep trying to work it from the wrong end. revenues are now up with the lower tax rates. putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education. bull. having high tax rates while the economy isnt strong will cause reduced revenues not higher as you keep trying to assume. a stronger economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do. btw im still waiting for that answer. i was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. congrats you finally admitted that even in your own watered down version in an attempt to save face. now who is the one trying to change the subject why the same person it always was you! change subject you mean back to what it was all along before you kept trying to switch it over to bush lol if these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues which is false and bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim clinton did then why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase its the difference between the two tbone. revenues rose faster during clintons term because of a growing economy. spending under clinton averaged 8% increases every year. under bush jr. it has been 4% on average 1/3 must be the new math. its public record tbone. instead of whine about it look it up. oh ya you have no interest in actually learning. your bias just tells you to argue. at least you admitted there never was a surplus. congrats on that. .

From : tbone

-- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote like i said show me where. just because you say it doesnt make it true. i did show you the numbers. ive shown you the numbers many times over the months. some from the gov.s own website. in fact there isnt a single credible source that shows a single year where revenues exceeded spending during clintons years. care to show me a credible source which shows yearly totals for actual revenues and spending through those years that show a surplus dont show me projections just actual figures. once again you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. i asked you to show me where i made these multiple claims about clintons surplus. it was not a projection it was a budget surplus. unfortunately there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didnt. btw who was and still is in control in congress ahhh....at least you now admit it was a budget surplus and not actual $s spent or received. so now you also admit that congress did not stay within the budget....guess what tbone that means no surplus ever existed. there was never a time that the deficit went down except on someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper. which is still far more than our current administration has done so far. so all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent too funny! lol no the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to do that either. you keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised they were lowered and your own information that you happened to delete imagine that shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. the point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. the drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop than the tax rate drop. lol actually the economy took its big dump just before the tax cuts went into effect. revenues go up and down as the economy does far more than from rate changes. you really think keeping high taxes when the economy is sagging is a good idea yep it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current way of thinking. federal revenues would have been lower not higher as you keep assuming. you dont know that and cannot prove it. i think that they would have gone higher. you fail to realize that tax revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. opposite of your absurd logic. lol complete bullshit. the revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working. you keep ignoring the rise in population as a reason for increased revenues which would have been even greater without those bogus tax cuts. the record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. it means nothing of the sort. what it does mean is that spending is too high. you keep trying to work it from the wrong end. revenues are now up with the lower tax rates. but there are more people as well and you cannot prove that the tax cuts had a damn thing to do with it because they didnt. you claim that bush increased spending now by only 1/2 of what clinton did and with considerably more money according to you how is spending too high putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education. bull. having high tax rates while the economy isnt strong will cause reduced revenues not higher as you keep trying to assume. a stronger economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do. how is it going to reduce revenues the simple answer is that they will not because the actual tax cuts dod nothing to improve the economy. they just made the very richer much richer at the cost to the rest of us. btw im still waiting for that answer. i was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. congrats you finally admitted that even in your own watered down version in an attempt to save face. there is nothing to save face about. now who is the one trying to change the subject why the same person it always was you! change subject you mean back to what it was all along before you kept trying to switch it over to bush lol keep spinning. if these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues which is false and bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you

From : miles

once again you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. i asked you to show me where i made these multiple claims about clintons surplus. wtf tbone are you saying you have never stated that under clinton there was a surplus further more are you telling us that you also have never said that bush jr. spent that surplus oh man. now thats hysterical!! which is still far more than our current administration has done so far lol you give credit to a president that just says there is a surplus when no such thing ever existed hmm...just bs say there is a surplus and youre all happy. good grief. lol no the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to do that either. so you are now retracting from there being a surplus to comparing who is worse. well at least youre moving in the right direction. yep it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current way of thinking. well now theres where your flaw is. high taxes in a down economy would sink it further causing lower revenues not higher as you seem to blindly assume. economy has a larger effect that the rate itself. you dont know that and cannot prove it. i think that they would have gone higher. pretty easy to see it. note the trends in revenues when taxes were raised vs. lowered during economic downturns. youll figure it out eventually tbone. lol complete bullshit. the revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working. hmm...so now youre backing away from all this unemployment you whined about not long ago the economy would not have grown with high tax rates. dont forget bush did not cut taxes. he removed the massive tax hikes that clinton gave us after he campaigned saying he would lower them. now its 8% before you claimed it was closer to 10% nope. ive said many times clintons budget increases averaged 8% per year. under bush jr. it has been 4% on lol now its 4% before it was 3.5% nope. lol. youre arguing with yourself! .

From : tbone

once again you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. i asked you to show me where i made these multiple claims about clintons surplus. wtf tbone are you saying you have never stated that under clinton there was a surplus further more are you telling us that you also have never said that bush jr. spent that surplus oh man. now thats hysterical!! no what is hysterical is you level of spin. you claimed that i said the first part many times and have yet to show me where i said either never mind many times. i admit that i said clinton formed a budget surplus which he did. i dont recall claiming that bush spent it but again i await your proof. which is still far more than our current administration has done so far lol you give credit to a president that just says there is a surplus when no such thing ever existed hmm...just bs say there is a surplus and youre all happy. good grief. gee could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when clinton wouldnt give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a democrat do what the lol financially responsible republicans couldnt do. gee politicians couldnt possibly do something that would harm the country for partisan reasons would they... lol no the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to do that either. so you are now retracting from there being a surplus to comparing who is worse. well at least youre moving in the right direction. where are you deriving this bs from but at least you are correct as to who is worse. yep it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current way of thinking. well now theres where your flaw is. high taxes in a down economy would sink it further causing lower revenues not higher as you seem to blindly assume. economy has a larger effect that the rate itself. lol complete bullshit. how do high tax rates on the personal income of the rich reduce revenues. perhaps a better idea would be to remove the loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for everyone can be validly reduced. you dont know that and cannot prove it. i think that they would have gone higher. pretty easy to see it. note the trends in revenues when taxes were raised vs. lowered during economic downturns. youll figure it out eventually tbone. lol back to the fuzzy math thing again. i did look and saw a significant drop right after those tax cuts went into effect. lol complete bullshit. the revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working. hmm...so now youre backing away from all this unemployment you whined about not long ago that was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. now the problem is low salaries for the same work. the economy would not have grown with high tax rates. once again you make claims that you can never back up. dont forget bush did not cut taxes. he removed the massive tax hikes that clinton gave us after he campaigned saying he would lower them. lol more spin. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote gee could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when clinton wouldnt give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a democrat do what the lol financially responsible republicans couldnt do. just what did those dems do under clinton spending exceeded revenues every single year in office. how could the reps spend a surplus that never even existed is it possible the so called piece of paper that said their was a surplus projection was a result of very poor figuring was it possible that surplus projection was the result of massive campaign spin for gores campaign to answer one must consider the fact that economists were saying there would be a large economic downturn despite gore and clinton saying how great things were. where are you deriving this bs from but at least you are correct as to who is worse. tbone you seem to have forgotten how much you argued in months prior about the clinton surplus. i told you it was only a projection and you whined and cried saying i was wrong. well at least you admit i was right in your own spun way. theres hope for you yet as youre learning. lol complete bullshit. how do high tax rates on the personal income of the rich reduce revenues. perhaps a better idea would be to remove the loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for everyone can be validly reduced. how many jobs do the poor provide to the masses of people in this country ya lets sock it to those rich bastards and make them move out of the country and take those jobs with them. thatll teach em. lol back to the fuzzy math thing again. i did look and saw a significant drop right after those tax cuts went into effect. significant drop lol. that was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. now the problem is low salaries for the same work. care to back up that claim according to the labor boards own figures the new jobs created are at salaries above the median. hardly low paying but keep believing what you may based on your biased doom and gloom standard liberal way of thinking. lol more spin. spin clinton most certainly did campaign saying he would lower taxes. instead one of his first things in office was to give us one the highest tax hikes in history. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote gee could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when clinton wouldnt give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a democrat do what the lol financially responsible republicans couldnt do. just what did those dems do under clinton spending exceeded revenues every single year in office. funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. actually it was fully expected. how could the reps spend a surplus that never even existed by purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot be easily vetoed. is it possible the so called piece of paper that said their was a surplus projection was a result of very poor figuring was it possible that surplus projection was the result of massive campaign spin for gores campaign to answer one must consider the fact that economists were saying there would be a large economic downturn despite gore and clinton saying how great things were. yea the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible so is the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the gore campaign just like the monica crap. where are you deriving this bs from but at least you are correct as to who is worse. tbone you seem to have forgotten how much you argued in months prior about the clinton surplus. i told you it was only a projection and you whined and cried saying i was wrong. well at least you admit i was right in your own spun way. theres hope for you yet as youre learning. just because you keep saying it doesnt make it so. i have asked you many times to back this up and you have yet to do so. i think that you are confusing me with someone else in another group but with your extreme right wing view point i suspect you have these arguments often and with many people. lol complete bullshit. how do high tax rates on the personal income of the rich reduce revenues. perhaps a better idea would be to remove the loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for everyone can be validly reduced. how many jobs do the poor provide to the masses of people in this country ya lets sock it to those rich bastards and make them move out of the country and take those jobs with them. thatll teach em. more complete bullshit!!!!! the wealthy are going nowhere for no other reason as there is nowhere better to go. this is nothing more than a right wing fear tactic that is proving to be complete crap. you are forgetting the fact that they are rich and rich here and rich because of what this society provides. sure greed may make them whine and want more but they know that they will have it better nowhere else and are not willing to give up all this country has to offer due to personal income tax that even at clintons level still allowed them to be very wealthy. that was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. now the problem is low salaries for the same work. care to back up that claim according to the labor boards own figures the new jobs created are at salaries above the median. hardly low paying but keep believing what you may based on your biased doom and gloom standard liberal way of thinking. and what did you say the median income is iirc you said under $25000. could you support your family where you live on this you can hide behind the fuzzy math of the government all you want i see the real world for what it is and so do you. you just like to hide from it in the hopes of increasing your own wealth at the cost of others. lol more spin. spin clinton most certainly did campaign saying he would lower taxes. instead one of his first things in office was to give us one the highest tax hikes in history. pretty much like bush sr with the difference being of a significant economic growth during clintons time in office unlike bush. face it miles you keep whining about clinton because you have nothing positive to say about the idiot you helped to elect the last two terms and want to keep the failure of our current president in the background but his dismal approval rating speaks for itself. even during the monica episode clinton didnt do this bad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. actually it was fully expected. funny how you forgot that clinton had veto powers. actually it was expected of you. by purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot be easily vetoed. lol. anything can be vetoed. if that happens then congress has got to submit a bill without the crud attached. yea the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible so is the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the gore campaign just like the monica crap. if thats true then clinton should have revised his surplus projection somewhere along those 8 years. did he hell no. kept right on saying there was a surplus right through his 8th year. so if you defend him on that then i guess the spending was all late in the 8th year huh more complete bullshit!!!!! the wealthy are going nowhere for no other reason as there is nowhere better to go. kewl. then youll shuddup about the the companies that have moved away cuz according to you they couldnt have. and what did you say the median income is iirc you said under $25000. you best check again. median income is way above 25k. the newly created jobs are not lower paying as you claim. please back this up tbone rather than just tout your own biased wishes. http//www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html could you support your family where you live on this you can hide behind the fuzzy math of the government all you want i see the real world for what it is and so do you no tbone. you see the world as you want to see it not how it really is. you believe newly created jobs are mostly low paying. ive asked you to back that claim up. all you gotta do is look at the labor boards figures then post the url here. ill wait. course it will be a long time since they wont substantiate your own claim. pretty much like bush sr with the difference being of a significant economic growth during clintons time in office unlike bush. bush sr. entered office with a negative economy and left with it positive. clinton entered with it positive and left with it negative. none the less i dont credit nor blame either one for the economy. what drives it is far more than anything a president or even congress can do. even during the monica episode clinton didnt do this bad. the hell he didnt. he sold us out to countries such as china and n.korea to name just a few. the so called love that other countries had for us was at a high price were paying now. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. actually it was fully expected. funny how you forgot that clinton had veto powers. actually it was expected of you. i forgot nothing but once again you try and spin it. using the veto is not all that easy especially when the congress is controlled by the other party. by purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot be easily vetoed. lol. anything can be vetoed. if that happens then congress has got to submit a bill without the crud attached. ya see i said that i didnt forget but once again you spun it and again it was fully expected. if clinton vetoed every bill with crap in it nothing he wanted to do would ever make it thru congress. yea the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible so is the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the gore campaign just like the monica crap. if thats true then clinton should have revised his surplus projection somewhere along those 8 years. did he hell no. kept right on saying there was a surplus right through his 8th year. so if you defend him on that then i guess the spending was all late in the 8th year huh iirc. the idiot you helped to get elected projected an even greater surplus and have yet to see him revise that one either even after putting us into record increases in dept. more complete bullshit!!!!! the wealthy are going nowhere for no other reason as there is nowhere better to go. kewl. then youll shuddup about the the companies that have moved away cuz according to you they couldnt have. once again either you think we are all idiots or are just one yourself. while many of these companies have shut down operations in this country it never had a damn thing to do with personal income tax and in most cases the wealthy corporate execs and owners are still here. and what did you say the median income is iirc you said under $25000. you best check again. median income is way above 25k. the newly created jobs are not lower paying as you claim. please back this up tbone rather than just tout your own biased wishes. http//www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html hahahahahaha you truly are an idiot. these numbers have nothing to do with what you are saying. this is the median income of 4 person homes where the income shown is the total income from all persons over 15 in the household. are you taking lessons on supplying meaningless facts from max now either show us a report stating that in fact your median income job creation is based on this figure or show us the individual income figure where it is actually based on. i would probably even limited it to 19 year old male income because that is actually what they are basing this claim on. could you support your family where you live on this you can hide behind the fuzzy math of the government all you want i see the real world for what it is and so do you no tbone. you see the world as you want to see it not how it really is. you believe newly created jobs are mostly low paying. ive asked you to back that claim up. all you gotta do is look at the labor boards figures then post the url here. ill wait. course it will be a long time since they wont substantiate your own claim. i go by what i see in the paper on line and what the tells me which is still far more than anything you have come up with. pretty much like bush sr with the difference being of a significant economic growth during clintons time in office unlike bush. bush sr. entered office with a negative economy and left with it positive. clinton entered with it positive and left with it negative. none the less i dont credit nor blame either one for the economy. what drives it is far more than anything a president or even congress can do. the economy was still in the toilet when clinton took office and when he left was still much higher than when he started but that was 6 years ago. while the economy is better than it was after the bush disaster it is still not what it should be despite your smoke and mirrors attempts to make it look otherwise and while i also dont blame bush for everything he is doing nothing to help correct it either. even during the monica episode clinton didnt do this bad. the hell he didnt. he sold us out to countries such as china and n.korea to name just a few. the so called love that other countries had for us was at a high price were paying now. more right wing bullshit and again not what i said. what was clintons lowest approval rating what is the rating of the one you helped to elect face it miles you helped to elect an idiot and it does not look good for your party during the mid-term elections and i guess that is why you feel the need to keep bringing up clinton. i hate to break it to you but he ha

From : miles

roy wrote so if sales profits continue to fall and costs such as health insurance continue to skyrocket then the high benifits being paid out have to come down. shouldnt they be negotiated at the end of the existing contract if at all possible yes. what happens when costs such as health insurance go up 30-60% per year after several years of this somethings gotta give and the contract may not be up yet. you can argue theres a contract so not gonna budge and hope the company stays afloat. miles where is everybodys indignation when a company like walmart comes in and puts 100 or more small companys or stores out of operation there is none unless it affects them personally. but that is okay sure you get a bunch of jobs mostly part time with zilch for benifits. roy what is your point to bring up one example of a lousy company isnt representative of the problem at large. walmart is an example of a company where the balance of power favors them. is that to mean thats always the case you seem to not realize the extent of damage that unions have done to many industries. i gotta pay $8+/lb here for a decent steak because of the dang unions with their absurd meat packers wages. do you wonder how much of a right off that idle mine is not much. to idle it costs very little. irs wont allow continued loss write offs or the mine is deemed no longer a business. all thats left is to write off the capital in the form of depreciation. the net result is that if its idle its a net loss not a net gain. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

you can stick to your union ways and say no way and force the company to move more overseas. your choice. it is a global market now most are overseas and have been for quite some time. it didnt have to be a global market and us tariffs are far too low. miles where is everybodys indignation when a company like walmart comes in and puts 100 or more small companys or stores out of operation there is none unless it affects them personally. but that is okay sure you get a bunch of jobs mostly part time with zilch for benifits. and where have you seen a walmart come in and destroy the mom&pop stores back in canon city co everyone screamed the same thing before the walmart itll destroy the the small stores!!!! and they were wrong. the only stores that went out of business were already poorly managed. today theres about 25 new small businesses that have come in and opened up since i moved away 6 years ago. id say you claim was worth as much as the strike pay from the union i once belonged to nothing. mom&pop stores are specialty stores offering goods and services a conglomerate store cant compete against noyt to mention they generally have a rather exclusive clientele. unions also have a habit of shutting down non-union companies regardless of whether that companies benifits are already above the unions. how they subsidize union companies in an area allowing that company to bid jobs under market. they keep it up until the company folds up. makes no difference if the company already is paying above union wages. how about the corperation that deliberatly wrecks part of itself a made a movie about the practice called wall street with douglas as the lead. read up on the eastern airline / continental airline horror show. i believe that was run by a guy named lorenzo out of texas. or one i was involved with timothy mellon of that wonderful mellon family of pa and his deal. he managed to wreck 3 railroads here in new england and newyork. gee have you considered the possibility it was the best way to avoid being dominated or forced into bankruptcy -- budd cochran romans 323 romans 623 john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 .

From : miles

tbone wrote i forgot nothing but once again you try and spin it. using the veto is not all that easy especially when the congress is controlled by the other party. lol congress has little to do with a veto except to override it which is pretty rare. ya see i said that i didnt forget but once again you spun it and again it was fully expected. if clinton vetoed every bill with crap in it nothing he wanted to do would ever make it thru congress. then i suppose that holds true for bush jr. as well for not vetoing spending bills right your bs doesnt hold up if you look at the dems voting record in congress under clinton or bush. neat thing about that. its public record if you take the time and interest. but then you never do. iirc. the idiot you helped to get elected projected an even greater surplus and have yet to see him revise that one either even after putting us into record increases in dept. ahh....defense by deflection. ok so they both suck with budgets. at least youre in agreement that clintons surplus wasnt real and the budget was blown by him during his own years. otherwise he would have revised it sometime during his years. instead clinton said there was a surplus right till the end when records show spending exceeded revenues every year. do you care hell no. at least instead of praising clinton like you have youre now reduced to saying bush is worse. thats progress at least! this is the median income of 4 person homes where the income shown is the total income from all persons over 15 in the household. ah yes we should include the income of toddlers to be per tbones math comprehension. the fact remains that the us median income is way above your 25000 figure. care to back that figure up i go by what i see in the paper on line and what the tells me which is still far more than anything you have come up with. so do tell. lets see some real numbers that agree with your claim that the usa median income is $25000 or less. i wanna know where the hell you pulled a number like that from while i also dont blame bush for everything he is doing nothing to help correct it either. the economy was falling and economists warned of a collapse during clintons last year. instead of doing anything he touted how great the economy was. why campaign year. you wanna whine about bush not doing anything then do the same for clinton. more right wing bullshit and again not what i said. what was clintons lowest approval rating approval ratings equate to doing a proper job in the wh how does a decent approval rating make what clinton did with china and n. korea any better or is it the fact that most in this country pay little attention to such things...making the approval rating meaningless. what you are doing is admitting your vote can be bought. whats important in politics is not important to you. .

From : miles

tbone wrote you keep making these claims and yet never back up a word of it yourself. the point is that bush is the president and the congress is controlled by the right at the moment. the left has no choice but to follow along because if not nothing they propose will even have a chance. oh geez. so dems vote for all the spending bills but its not really their fault huh well at least you admit they have no backbone but we knew that already. again you would be wrong. at least clinton was able to balance the budget even if congress chose to overspend. bush cant even get that far. pretty easy to say you have a balanced budget by simply drawing up numbers on paper. seven years went by with deficit spending under clinton. why did he not revise his budget for the 8th year to match the trend oh ya he needed to show you a balanced budget and a surplus. want adds in the paper for one. you are the one now claiming that it is so much higher lets see you back it up with some valid data for a change. your local want ads show the usa median income lol. i did back it up but youve decided that median income needs to include everyone including those too young to even work and have an income. who cares about clinton now he is no longer the president and hasnt been so for 6 years and btw the point is tbone that you are a huge hypocrite. you whine about many things that were acceptable from others. what exactly did clinton do that is any worse than what bush is doing now so thats your excuse for clintons failures lol .

From : tbone

tbone wrote i forgot nothing but once again you try and spin it. using the veto is not all that easy especially when the congress is controlled by the other party. lol congress has little to do with a veto except to override it which is pretty rare. lol i must say miles i think i reply to you just to see how far you can push the envelope of reality. while overrides are pretty rare that is not what im talking about and you know it. first of all if the president vetoed everything that had crap like this in it nothing would ever get done. second by putting them in important bills if the president vetoed it all you would hear is crap about how the president doesnt care about the country for vetoing such an important bill. and third if the president kept vetoing all of these bills the other side especially if it is in control of congress will never let bills important to the other side get to the president. ya see i said that i didnt forget but once again you spun it and again it was fully expected. if clinton vetoed every bill with crap in it nothing he wanted to do would ever make it thru congress. then i suppose that holds true for bush jr. as well for not vetoing spending bills right your bs doesnt hold up if you look at the dems voting record in congress under clinton or bush. neat thing about that. its public record if you take the time and interest. but then you never do. you keep making these claims and yet never back up a word of it yourself. the point is that bush is the president and the congress is controlled by the right at the moment. the left has no choice but to follow along because if not nothing they propose will even have a chance. iirc. the idiot you helped to get elected projected an even greater surplus and have yet to see him revise that one either even after putting us into record increases in dept. ahh....defense by deflection. not at all. just an injection of reality. you keep whining about clinton because you have nothing positive to say about the man you helped put into office. and after 6 years thats pretty sad. ok so they both suck with budgets. again you would be wrong. at least clinton was able to balance the budget even if congress chose to overspend. bush cant even get that far. at least youre in agreement that clintons surplus wasnt real and the budget was blown by him during his own years. i am in agreement of no such thing because you are completely full of shit. please demonstrate exactly how clinton blew the budget and not the right wing congress. otherwise he would have revised it sometime during his years. instead clinton said there was a surplus right till the end when records show spending exceeded revenues every year. do you care hell no. at least instead of praising clinton like you have youre now reduced to saying bush is worse. thats progress at least! spin it anyway you like there is no need to revise for pork barrel spending especially when there is no way to know how much will be done year to year. the funny thing is that i can praise clinton and bush still is worse far worse lol!!! this is the median income of 4 person homes where the income shown is the total income from all persons over 15 in the household. ah yes we should include the income of toddlers to be per tbones math comprehension. the fact remains that the us median income is way above your 25000 figure. care to back that figure up i am still waiting for you to come up with some valid figures for a change. median household income has little to do with median personal income as it is a total income of the entire family so the link you provided is worthless. the 25000 figure came form you and jerry about a year ago and little has changed since then. i go by what i see in the paper on line and what the tells me which is still far more than anything you have come up with. so do tell. lets see some real numbers that agree with your claim that the usa median income is $25000 or less. i wanna know where the hell you pulled a number like that from want adds in the paper for one. you are the one now claiming that it is so much higher lets see you back it up with some valid data for a change. while i also dont blame bush for everything he is doing nothing to help correct it either. the economy was falling and economists warned of a collapse during clintons last year. instead of doing anything he touted how great the economy was. why campaign year. you wanna whine about bush not doing anything then do the same for clinton. who cares about clinton now he is no longer the president and hasnt been so for 6 years and btw im not the one who keeps bringing it up you are. perhaps you should follow your own advice and instead of still whining about clinton how about talking about the problems with our current president. more right wing bullshi

From : miles

tbone wrote oh geez. so dems vote for all the spending bills but its not really their fault huh well at least you admit they have no backbone but we knew that already. if you dont even understand this much and have to resort to silly name calling.... name calling which name exactly is that i lost count at how many names youve called me and others here. anyone see a name here too funny. funny how the right did not argue that it was bogus. the hell they didnt. in clintons 8th year in office there were 3 projections made by government officials. only one showed a surplus. guess whose that was no the local adds show the average salaries of the jobs being created in this area. your area is the entire country second the vast majority of jobs open in the country are not in the local paper want ads. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote you keep making these claims and yet never back up a word of it yourself. the point is that bush is the president and the congress is controlled by the right at the moment. the left has no choice but to follow along because if not nothing they propose will even have a chance. oh geez. so dems vote for all the spending bills but its not really their fault huh well at least you admit they have no backbone but we knew that already. if you dont even understand this much and have to resort to silly name calling.... again you would be wrong. at least clinton was able to balance the budget even if congress chose to overspend. bush cant even get that far. pretty easy to say you have a balanced budget by simply drawing up numbers on paper. seven years went by with deficit spending under clinton. why did he not revise his budget for the 8th year to match the trend oh ya he needed to show you a balanced budget and a surplus. funny how the right did not argue that it was bogus. why do you think that was perhaps because if they did the left could supply documentation as to where the excess money went and by whom. want adds in the paper for one. you are the one now claiming that it is so much higher lets see you back it up with some valid data for a change. your local want ads show the usa median income lol. i did back it up but youve decided that median income needs to include everyone including those too young to even work and have an income. no the local adds show the average salaries of the jobs being created in this area. i really believe that you are full of shit on most issues anymore and i doubt that own any business at all. i bet that you are some young kid that really doesnt have a clue about anything but wants to look cool. you just get too much even the simple shit wrong. if you actually bothered to read the crap that you posted you would have known that the income given was household income. since you seem to be too damn stupid to understand this let me explain. what you provided was the addition of all incomes in each household for everyone over 15 including social security payments. how is that relevant to the individual median income in any possible way if you owned a business like you claim or even had half a brain you would know that it doesnt because there is no way to determine how many or how much each individual contributed to that income or even where it came from. did the household have 1 person making that money or 4 people each making 1/4 of it or perhaps 3 with one person making 1/2 and the other 2 making 1/4 each iow no fucking way to know. if you want to back up your claim try using relavant data like individual median income. who cares about clinton now he is no longer the president and hasnt been so for 6 years and btw the point is tbone that you are a huge hypocrite. you whine about many things that were acceptable from others. as much as i hate to burst your bubble it is you that is the hypocrite. you are the one continually whining about how bad of a job clinton had done when your guy is the current president and has done much worse. funny how i dont hear any comments from you about him. your best bet would be to shut your mouth and read a little so that you can carry off your bs a little more realistically. what exactly did clinton do that is any worse than what bush is doing now so thats your excuse for clintons failures lol i dont have or need no excuse for clintons failures as it was not my turn to watch him. i have yet to see a valid list of those failures from you or what you think he should have done about it. perhaps its because you really dont have any and as usual when asked to actually back up the crap you say you just run and hide. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote oh geez. so dems vote for all the spending bills but its not really their fault huh well at least you admit they have no backbone but we knew that already. if you dont even understand this much and have to resort to silly name calling.... name calling which name exactly is that i lost count at how many names youve called me and others here. anyone see a name here too funny. gee lets see saying that the dems dont have any backbones isnt name calling now is it. funny how the right did not argue that it was bogus. the hell they didnt. in clintons 8th year in office there were 3 projections made by government officials. only one showed a surplus. guess whose that was what about the other years when he claimed that same surplus and the right was screaming for tax cuts due to it. were they just lying sacks of shit then or now could that last years negativity possibly be due to the next election gee i wonder. no the local adds show the average salaries of the jobs being created in this area. your area is the entire country nope just a sample but this state happens to be right in the middle of the salary range. second the vast majority of jobs open in the country are not in the local paper want ads. no shit but it is really no different on the web. sure there are high paying jobs out there but their numbers are few and usually require an extensive education and / or experience and do not fit in your new jobs created above bullshit because there are so few of them. btw im still waiting for your data showing the actual median individual incomes instead of the meaningless household crap you initially posted. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .