Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Remember when Obama "saved" Chrysler?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    If you look at Jaguar and Land Rover they have been run amazingly well since being sold to an Indian company with sales going through the roof and manufacturing being massively expanded in the UK. They realise that part of the allure of the brand is it's Britishness just as with German cars which are thoroughly German and meticulously engineered to ridiculous levels.
    It's the brand that matters and they can't lose that or all is lost.
    A range Rover designed and built in India just isn't the same.


    Well, Mini is even in Germany marketed as a british car, although it is not a secret who owns and runs it (BMW). Its "britishness", like bad weather and Yorkshire pudding is part of its brand recognition. BMW might consider to enlarge it, shrink it, shut it down or sell it, but never to move production over to Germany and never to market it under the standard of "german engineering". It just wouldn´t work. Not in a technical, but in an image/PR sense. Just as Chrysler will always remain a distinctly american brand ( and not become as "italian" as Alfa Romeo ), even if not in ownership.
    If american taxpayers have made a good deal or rather FIAT is another question though.....

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      well you wouldn't see the problem. You've discussed the "success" you feel jag and range rover are making for the UK when they are now owned by the chinese or some such. IDK the exact quote I'm shooting from the hip but I do remember having this convo with you and I do remember jag and range rover are now foreign owned.
      They are interesting as a good example of foreign ownership being a good thing. They are now owned by Tata motors from India but have pledged to keep design, construction and headquarters in the UK and have invested hundreds of millions of pounds on new factories and improving the old.
      The cars are better than they were and are flying out the door and they are employing more people than ever.

      If this is supposed to be a bad thing then bring on the bad stuff.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
        They are interesting as a good example of foreign ownership being a good thing. They are now owned by Tata motors from India but have pledged to keep design, construction and headquarters in the UK and have invested hundreds of millions of pounds on new factories and improving the old.
        The cars are better than they were and are flying out the door and they are employing more people than ever.

        If this is supposed to be a bad thing then bring on the bad stuff.
        You are missing the bad. The basis that the US taxpayers bailed out Chrysler at a loss so Fiat could buy them with our money.

        Think of it like this. Your neighbor's flat is in foreclosure. They owe 30,000 pounds in back payments. You are a nice guy, so you give them 40,000 pounds so they keep their flat. Then, they sell it to someone else, and you are out 30,000 pounds.

        See the bad now?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

          All I see is tens of thousands of people with jobs who had a large chance of being unemployed if Chrysler went bust.

          This has no bearing on the debate but I think you might find it interesting but Chrysler are almost unknown in the UK and sell bugger all here.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            I thought the bailout was about saving tens of thousands of jobs which it did.
            You are only talking about unions because you see union involvement in everything because as a conservative you are anti union.
            It's strange that when we talk about the bank bailouts the union is never mentioned but when an auto maker is bailed out conservatives scream about a union conspiracy. I wonder why that is?
            Well when you have union members that were retiring at 80% of their base pay along with other benefits coming out their ears after a mere 20 years of employment--which the auto manufacturers had to come up with each month--it's very reasonable that the Unions got their money to pay for all those retirees. IOW--it was an auto union bailout. No other non-union industry was bailed out by taxpayer dollars.

            The unions are a major voting block for Democrats even though only 7% of the American population even belong to one. Therefore, they're protected.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              All I see is tens of thousands of people with jobs who had a large chance of being unemployed if Chrysler went bust.

              This has no bearing on the debate but I think you might find it interesting but Chrysler are almost unknown in the UK and sell bugger all here.
              Well, I'm sure that those working folks would have been laid off for a spell, until the bankruptcy would have reorganized everything and they'd have been called back. Can't really run large organizations without the people who know how to make it go and make money.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                Well, I'm sure that those working folks would have been laid off for a spell, until the bankruptcy would have reorganized everything and they'd have been called back. Can't really run large organizations without the people who know how to make it go and make money.

                You're right--they could have re-organized--like all the airlines do when they go bankrupt (without taxpayer dollars.) But we're talking UNIONS here which democrats will protect with taxpayer dollars.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                  Being concerned with working americans being employed, and if a Fiat owned Chrysler will employ americans going into the future, the bail out that kept people employed, and the sale which will hopefully keep people employed was good sense. But only if you think Americans having a living wage job has any importance at all in this era of the maximization of profits by big business. Fiat probably knows the factory has to stay here, as it is an American brand, as was mentioned by our European friends here.

                  In the interest of national security, we had better have the manufacturing infrastructure to win the future big war. Without out car manufacturers, we would have waved the white flag early on in ww2.

                  Industry is necessary in order to defend yourselves in this modern world. But it was also a fact in the less modern world. I look at this deindustrialization in this manner, that we have become weakened. And we best do what it takes to keep it here. It's no difference than to stop totally making ammo for war, and then depend upon a supply line from the other side of the world. I think it's insane what we have allowed to happen. But more profits makes for insanity, as money is a corrupting factor, and always has been.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                    It sounds all warm and fuzzy that the bailout saved all these jobs but the truth is, these companies would have just reorganized under the bankruptcy laws and gone on as has American Airlines several times. The treasury would be billions richer and our children would have much less debt to repay. This bailout was nothing but a repayment to the unions for helping elect Obama

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      Being concerned with working americans being employed, and if a Fiat owned Chrysler will employ americans going into the future, the bail out that kept people employed, and the sale which will hopefully keep people employed was good sense. But only if you think Americans having a living wage job has any importance at all in this era of the maximization of profits by big business. Fiat probably knows the factory has to stay here, as it is an American brand, as was mentioned by our European friends here.

                      In the interest of national security, we had better have the manufacturing infrastructure to win the future big war. Without out car manufacturers, we would have waved the white flag early on in ww2.

                      Industry is necessary in order to defend yourselves in this modern world. But it was also a fact in the less modern world. I look at this deindustrialization in this manner, that we have become weakened. And we best do what it takes to keep it here. It's no difference than to stop totally making ammo for war, and then depend upon a supply line from the other side of the world. I think it's insane what we have allowed to happen. But more profits makes for insanity, as money is a corrupting factor, and always has been.
                      You never answer my points Blue, but I will try again---------->How is Ford Motor doing? Do you know they were not bailed out? They took their loans against there factories, and even their Blue Oval insignia before the credit markets seized up.

                      So then I ask you--------->why didn't the government just LOAN GM the money they wanted to stay afloat that was prevented by the credit markets seizing out of the treasury? I know why, do you? And, it has NOTHING to do with economics, and everything to do with politics.

                      Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that OMD, Tsquare, EOHN, and the rest are telling you is pretty accurate, with a bunch more sinister political wranglings that they haven't even touched upon, probably because they aren't aware of it.

                      Finally---------->The collapse of the big 2 was a UNION problem, you do understand this, do you not? Far smaller auto companies did not need bailouts, in fact; the reason that the bailouts were structured the way they were was so that other automakers could NOT ask for help, as what they paid for and why was specific. GUESS what that was, and what caused it-)

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                        Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
                        You never answer my points Blue, but I will try again---------->How is Ford Motor doing? Do you know they were not bailed out? They took their loans against there factories, and even their Blue Oval insignia before the credit markets seized up.

                        So then I ask you--------->why didn't the government just LOAN GM the money they wanted to stay afloat that was prevented by the credit markets seizing out of the treasury? I know why, do you? And, it has NOTHING to do with economics, and everything to do with politics.

                        Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that OMD, Tsquare, EOHN, and the rest are telling you is pretty accurate, with a bunch more sinister political wranglings that they haven't even touched upon, probably because they aren't aware of it.

                        Finally---------->The collapse of the big 2 was a UNION problem, you do understand this, do you not? Far smaller auto companies did not need bailouts, in fact; the reason that the bailouts were structured the way they were was so that other automakers could NOT ask for help, as what they paid for and why was specific. GUESS what that was, and what caused it-)
                        Unions like any other entity can become corrupt. In fact unions and politics are a commonality here, in this corruption. But, unions are necessary, to guard against the greed and avarice that has always been present in the upper crust.

                        All unions are not corrupt, but many of course were. But it is possible to have a good, reasonable union, as you see those in Germany. I will not take a corrupt union like the autoworkers union, and then color all unions the same color. The right always does this. But I would imagine most on the right are totally against worker representation in the creation of income, which to me simple says they couldn't care less about the base side of human nature that miagrates upward with the wealth. Which then manifests as underpaying their employees. So they can keep more of the income generated.

                        You cannot depend or trust in the better side of human nature, but it's a fairly sure bet to depend upon the base side of human nature. That the base side will always flourish greater than the good side. And when found in those that have the power to affect others, the others don't generally fair very well, historically. A fact.

                        If you want me to agree that the bailout was for the unions, I will not disagree. I think that was a factor, and perhaps it was a great factor, but surely there are other factors? The union probably donated great sums in various ways to the dems, and there were strings attached. Banking and business does this with both parties. Which should be illegal, but now it seems corporations are treated like a voting citizen, with those privledges.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          Unions like any other entity can become corrupt. In fact unions and politics are a commonality here, in this corruption. But, unions are necessary, to guard against the greed and avarice that has always been present in the upper crust.

                          All unions are not corrupt, but many of course were. But it is possible to have a good, reasonable union, as you see those in Germany. I will not take a corrupt union like the autoworkers union, and then color all unions the same color. The right always does this. But I would imagine most on the right are totally against worker representation in the creation of income, which to me simple says they couldn't care less about the base side of human nature that miagrates upward with the wealth. Which then manifests as underpaying their employees. So they can keep more of the income generated.

                          You cannot depend or trust in the better side of human nature, but it's a fairly sure bet to depend upon the base side of human nature. That the base side will always flourish greater than the good side. And when found in those that have the power to affect others, the others don't generally fair very well, historically. A fact.

                          If you want me to agree that the bailout was for the unions, I will not disagree. I think that was a factor, and perhaps it was a great factor, but surely there are other factors? The union probably donated great sums in various ways to the dems, and there were strings attached. Banking and business does this with both parties. Which should be illegal, but now it seems corporations are treated like a voting citizen, with those privledges.
                          I have very few issues with public sector unions. They have to live, and make deals with the corporations, and the corporations managers are there to make sure that the corporation's interests are represented, same as the unions are supposed to be representing their member's interests.

                          The real serious corruption is between the public sector unions and the legislators they cut deals with. More often than not, the unions gets their favored legislator elected with their member's muscle, and then turn around and cut a deal with that legislator who is beholden to the union. The tax payer, who has to pay for the deal, their interests are not represented.

                          That's corrupt, and without a mitigating control. In fact, FDR already acknowledged that public sector unions shouldn't really exist.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            I have very few issues with public sector unions. They have to live, and make deals with the corporations, and the corporations managers are there to make sure that the corporation's interests are represented, same as the unions are supposed to be representing their member's interests.

                            The real serious corruption is between the public sector unions and the legislators they cut deals with. More often than not, the unions gets their favored legislator elected with their member's muscle, and then turn around and cut a deal with that legislator who is beholden to the union. The tax payer, who has to pay for the deal, their interests are not represented.

                            That's corrupt, and without a mitigating control. In fact, FDR already acknowledged that public sector unions shouldn't really exist.
                            Agreed. A CEO/CFO of a company/corporation, has to answer to the shareholders. A politician who has created these problems we are seeing today, has long since retired from office, and also collecting from the tax payer trough.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                              Oops. I have to apply a patch.
                              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                              I have very few issues with private sector unions. . . . .
                              There. That's better.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: Remember when Obama &quot;saved&quot; Chrysler?

                                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                                I have very few issues with public sector unions. They have to live, and make deals with the corporations, and the corporations managers are there to make sure that the corporation's interests are represented, same as the unions are supposed to be representing their member's interests.

                                The real serious corruption is between the public sector unions and the legislators they cut deals with. More often than not, the unions gets their favored legislator elected with their member's muscle, and then turn around and cut a deal with that legislator who is beholden to the union. The tax payer, who has to pay for the deal, their interests are not represented.

                                That's corrupt, and without a mitigating control. In fact, FDR already acknowledged that public sector unions shouldn't really exist.
                                And FDR was absolutely correct and right in his thinking on public sector unions. Gov't employees are already represented, as they have a vote in who constructs policy in regards to pay and benefits and they exercise it each time they vote in our elections.

                                I can recall when gov't workers were not so well paid, but had great benefits like retirement and insurance. And there was great job security, which they exchanged for working in the private sector. Now being an employee for the federal gov't is better than working in the private sector, due to unions. Plus it corrupts even greater our gov't. Which doesn't need any aid in the corruption.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X