101–110 of 193 posts
Mitt Romney. I'm supposed to take anything this asshole says seriously? Why? Next up, Sarah Palin on Russian Policy, or Bill Kristol's bedwetting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you site that $73/hour wage? A cursory glance around the internet indicated something around $30/hr as of last year. The only places I saw $73 were other forums, but maybe they all have a common, legit source.
I believe that $73/hour number includes all executive pay and obviously is an average chosen to misrepresent information. The average assembly line worker wage (and the median wage) is closer to $30.
edit: This has some links:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/should-we-really-bail-ou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, I noticed that (and edited my post to reflect it), apparently while you were writing your post. However, there are plenty of people who make less money than auto workers who do pay taxes. One reason the bailout is morally wrong is that it is a regressive tax. It takes from the (relatively) poor and gives to the (relatively) rich.
Are you saying that it is morally wrong to take money from relatively rich people to give to relatively poor, but not the other way around? I think any (Government) wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but that's just my 2 cents!
Every time a government changes tax rates, wealth gets redistributed. Every time it builds a school or a road, wealth is redistributed. Every economic policy redistributes wealth.
I hope the I just redistributed your 2 cents :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I basically agree with you, but it's worth noting that your hypothetical Denny's waitress would pay no federal income tax (though she would pay the payroll tax), and would probably qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's really the professional wage earners (doctors, lawyers, etc.) pulling in a few hundred grand who get the shaft.
$8/hour = $16k per year (roughly). Since this is greater than the standard deduction you will not be avoiding federal income tax at this level.
one must ask why a waitress at denny's who makes minimum wage and has no healthcare must bail out union workers at gm who make 8x the wages, do less work, have ZERO DEDUCTABLE healthcare (do you? i doubt it), and full pensions. or why should a succesful worker at honda in ohio subsidize not only a failed competitor, but in essence have his own taxation used to undermine his own hard work? as for saving jobs and inves…
it really disgusts me that this comment has been upmodded so much. it reeks of overgeneralization, ignorance, and hyperbole. it's very easy to sit on your high horse and talk about hypothetical denny's waitresses, but a little harder when this actually effects you and your loved ones. my father worked his ass off for GM for more than 25 years, not to mention driving 100 miles each way for the last 10 so his family di…
Mythical "Welfare Queen," meet the mythical "UAW King."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if the Big Three go under, a very large number of workers (folks working for the Big Three and for their suppliers) will suddenly be collecting unemployment insurance instead of paying taxes; given the current state of the economy, they may be collecting it for quite a while. So it would be cheaper for the government to keep those employers afloat. The obvious counterargument to that is that the auto companie…
Because if the Big Three go under, a very large number of workers (folks working for the Big Three and for their suppliers) will suddenly be collecting unemployment insurance instead of paying taxes and they will also paid in taxes if bailed. so GM is going to become a giant money laundering operation for the IRS? cut out the middleman and put them on unemployment...then they can actually find PRODUCTIVE work
One could argue that it would still be better off in the long term for the government to bite the bullet and pay that unemployment money than to keep the US auto industry afloat; I am partial to that argument myself. But I'm responding to the "why should a waitress at Denny's..." question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, I noticed that (and edited my post to reflect it), apparently while you were writing your post. However, there are plenty of people who make less money than auto workers who do pay taxes. One reason the bailout is morally wrong is that it is a regressive tax. It takes from the (relatively) poor and gives to the (relatively) rich.
Well, a very high % of taxes come from either businesses or people who make more than the average GM worker. Plus a $25 billion dollar loan to GM isn't the same thing, from the taxpayers perspective, as giving them $25 billion. Presumably it will be paid back with interest. Of course, it won't get as much interest as people could earn investing their own money in the private sector, or they'd all be buying GM bonds a…
"At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat." Unions will not take management seriously until this happens. However, I als…
And recently today the heads of GM and Ford both refused to take a one dollar annual salary as Lee Iacocca did when Chrysler was bailed out in the 80's. So I really don't see top management in either Ford or GM to do anything to symbolize sacrifice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As we save the companies that crippled the credit markets, we have no interest in spending a fraction of that same amount of money helping the companies most negatively effected by the condition of those same credit markets. are you trying to tell me that gm is simply a victim of the credit crisis??? why would a bank loan them money now?? aren't we all about responsible lending now?? lending money to gm is the corpor…
Yes. How do people buy cars? On credit. Harder to get credit means fewer people capable of buying cars. A bad economy means fewer people buying cars. GM et al, did not create the credit crisis. They did not create the bad economic conditions. But we want them, and more importantly, all the people working in that industry to suffer? Honestly, I can't imagine how letting them fail won't cause more than 25 billion in ec…