PDA

View Full Version : Dems play gotcha politics with US jobs



highsea
21 Jul 10,, 18:59
You would have had to seen this on C-Span this morning to get the picture. Debate in the house under suspension, so limited to 30 minutes each side. The bill is the Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill (MTB).

The bill suspends tariffs for specific imports, it has always had very broad bipartisan support. Nothing is put in the bill that both sides don't agree on. It goes for 3 years, then gets re-introduced.

The tariff suspensions are targeted to certain companies and are usually for things not produced in the US. It also applies to footwear and some textiles. The idea is that it helps US manufacturers by reducing their costs on imported components and materials.

So here's where it gets wierd.

Back in 2007, one of the first things the dems did when they got control of the house was to make a rule change that defined tariff suspensions as congressional earmarks, with the accompanying restrictions on disclosure, etc.

The repubs have passed a resolution to vote against any bill with earmarks this year. This is pretty much set in stone among House repubs.

So the MTB was brought to the floor, and the dems argued vociferously for passage, citing it as a jobs bill.

But they introduced it under suspension, which means it needs a supermajority to pass.

The repubs got up and said that they were not opposed to the bill, but couldn't vote for it because of the rule that equates the tariff suspensions with earmarks, but pointed out the the bill would easily pass under normal rules that only require 218 votes.

Which the dems protested loudly. They knew the repubs wouldn't vote for the bill due to the earmark provision, and they knew they couldn't get a supermajority without some repub votes.

So it was engineered to fail by the dems, using the process rather than the substance of the bill to meet their objective of raising tariffs.

Okay, debate ends and they have a voice vote. No repubs voted against, and the chair declared the bill passed by 2/3 majority of voice vote. No repubs objected.

Oops! Suddenly Sandy Levin (who introduced the bill) objects and calls for a roll-call vote, and further proceedings are postponed since roll-call votes are conducted in blocks.

The MTB will fail unless the repubs back down on their earmark policy, in which case the dems will that use against them in the mid-terms. If the repubs stand firm, the dems will say they blocked a job creating bill.

The dems never wanted the bill to pass in the first place, or they would have brought it to the floor it in regular order where it only needed a simple majority.

So by manipulating the process, they effictively push through billions in tariffs against US manufacturers that they claim to oppose. :rolleyes:

dalem
21 Jul 10,, 19:33
Democrats are not serious about governing. They are serious about power. They are dangerous. Very very dangerous.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
21 Jul 10,, 19:41
it had bipartisan support in 2007
Don't you find any irony in the same Congressmen who were in the majority when congressional earmarks exploded now getting religon on them?

dalem
21 Jul 10,, 19:47
it had bipartisan support in 2007
Don't you find any irony in the same Congressmen who were in the majority when congressional earmarks exploded now getting religon on them?

Read what highsea posted. It has bipartisan support NOW. Dems don't care if it passes or not - they care about making Republicans look bad to the average person who will only hear about this via the standard liberal-Democratic media.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
21 Jul 10,, 20:02
Read what highsea posted. It has bipartisan support NOW. Dems don't care if it passes or not - they care about making Republicans look bad to the average person who will only hear about this via the standard liberal-Democratic media.

-dale

Support is usually signified by voting for something. The Majority always forces hard votes when they can at EVERY oppurtunity regardless of the party.

dalem
21 Jul 10,, 20:09
Support is usually signified by voting for something. The Majority always forces hard votes when they can at EVERY oppurtunity regardless of the party.

This congress has used the machinations of procedure far more. Look how they got Obamacare "passed" without having to undergo a real vote. Look how they've "deemed" a budget this year so they don't have to own up to the horrifying deficits they've run up.

Attaching "gotcha" items to bills to drag one's political opponents through the mud is disgusting (to me anyway) whenever anyone does it and yes, every majority does it, R or D. But the above is different - it's open and deliberate parliamentarism for pure politics, and if they didn't feel confident that they have most of the "press" comfortably in their pockets, they'd never try it.

And again, READ what highsea posted. They DID vote for it and it DID pass a voice vote. Levin then forced a roll-call vote, which the Repubs already'd said they couldn't vote for in good conscience.

-dale

highsea
21 Jul 10,, 20:50
Support is usually signified by voting for something. The Majority always forces hard votes when they can at EVERY oppurtunity regardless of the party.No they don't. As Dale already mentioned, look at Obamacare. In this Congress, it has always been the opposition that calls for the roll call. I watch these debates.

If the dems were genuinely worried about jobs, they would have let the voice vote stand, and moved on to the next order of business.

But they don't want that outcome. They want the tariffs, and they want the repubs to take the blame. Or they want to make repubs reverse their stand on earmarks.

Whichever one, it's okay to the dems- they are just looking for political fodder for November.

The dems set the rules, and the dems set the agenda. The tariffs will be reinstated because that is the outcome they chose. They knew it before they even introduced the bill. It was an orchestrated maneuver.

It's just another anti-business shot from the democrat's economic death star.

Roosveltrepub
22 Jul 10,, 00:57
No they don't. As Dale already mentioned, look at Obamacare. In this Congress, it has always been the opposition that calls for the roll call. I watch these debates.

If the dems were genuinely worried about jobs, they would have let the voice vote stand, and moved on to the next order of business.

But they don't want that outcome. They want the tariffs, and they want the repubs to take the blame. Or they want to make repubs reverse their stand on earmarks.

Whichever one, it's okay to the dems- they are just looking for political fodder for November.

The dems set the rules, and the dems set the agenda. The tariffs will be reinstated because that is the outcome they chose. They knew it before they even introduced the bill. It was an orchestrated maneuver.

It's just another anti-business shot from the democrat's economic death star.

the roll calls are because the votes have been painful to make. This one is too. It's not the Dems faukt they made an idiotic pledge.

dalem
22 Jul 10,, 03:15
the roll calls are because the votes have been painful to make. This one is too. It's not the Dems faukt they made an idiotic pledge.

But is it the Dem's fault that they deliberately chose to score political points over sound governance?

-dale

Edit to add: By the way, I think this whole thing is hilarious. Poke a liberal/Democrat about any hot-button issue and it's never their fault or responsibility, or better yet, "everybody does it", especially if that's not true. They don't suffer from shame or guilt when prominent members break the law but any conservative/Republican that falls short of the liberal/Democratic interpretation of the conservative/Republican ideal tarnishes the whole apple barrel in their eyes.

They are arrogant, spoiled, and ignorant children, permanently socketed into the emotional equivalent of a 12 year old girl.

Julie
22 Jul 10,, 04:01
Vote in November, or you have no right to bitch. :))

dalem
22 Jul 10,, 04:22
Vote in November, or you have no right to bitch. :))

Now Julie, do you really think I'd not be voting? :)

I will be taking the night off work and listening to the radio eagerly with a bottle of bourbon and a cigar near to hand. In the living room I'll have Foxnews on the bigscreen with the sound off.

I take election night seriously. :)

-dale

bonehead
22 Jul 10,, 06:03
God, I hate all this political posturing bull crap. The dems try to make the republicans the bad guys and the republicans return the favor every chance they get. If your going to vote, vote to get rid of BOTH sorry assed parties and put people in office who want what is best for the country. At this point both these parties have proven beyond a doubt that they do not give a hairy rats ass about the country. Seriously, Does it really matter if the ship is leaning to the right or the left when it sinks?

dalem
22 Jul 10,, 06:55
Seriously, Does it really matter if the ship is leaning to the right or the left when it sinks?

Yes.

-dale

bigross86
22 Jul 10,, 10:05
Not only that, do you honestly see anybody out there who fits your criteria?

Israel had 33 parties with candidates running last election, so there was a decent chance you could vote for somebody that matched your views. There were no guarantees that they would get elected, but at least there was an option of voting for more than just the big three parties.

Genosaurer
22 Jul 10,, 17:32
Israel had 33 parties with candidates running last election, so there was a decent chance you could vote for somebody that matched your views. There were no guarantees that they would get elected, but at least there was an option of voting for more than just the big three parties.

Although the downside to such a system is that you guys get coalition governments, and all the hilarity that entails.

No thank you. If a two party system is the price we have to pay for not having to put up with single-issue minority parties like Shas or Bloc Québécois getting disproportionate amounts of power because the plurality party can't form a government without their support, I'll put up with it, and gladly too.

bigross86
22 Jul 10,, 17:56
That's the trade-off. You can deal with the coalition hilarity, and yet get your point across, or you can deal with two major parties and get bumfcuked by both parties.

At least here I know that every time a politician acts like a real jackass, the trend is that the votes are going more and more to the smaller fringe parties.

gunnut
22 Jul 10,, 17:59
Seriously, Does it really matter if the ship is leaning to the right or the left when it sinks?

Yes. The hole on the port side is much bigger.

bonehead
22 Jul 10,, 18:24
Yes.

-dale

Fine. You can concentrate on making the ship sink to the right. I am going to try to keep it afloat.

bonehead
22 Jul 10,, 18:25
Yes. The hole on the port side is much bigger.

Totally irrelevant. The ship is sinking and both holes are too big to fix.

bonehead
22 Jul 10,, 18:34
That's the trade-off. You can deal with the coalition hilarity, and yet get your point across, or you can deal with two major parties and get bumfcuked by both parties.

At least here I know that every time a politician acts like a real jackass, the trend is that the votes are going more and more to the smaller fringe parties.

What too many political type Americans have forgotten is that The U.S. created the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights without the "assistance" of either party. We need more people like the framers of those documents and less riff raff that the Republicans and Democrats currently throw our way. Those three documents are shining beacons of what can be accomplished when you have people who put country before personal glory or bipartisan bickering.

gunnut
22 Jul 10,, 18:44
Totally irrelevant. The ship is sinking and both holes are too big to fix.

Fix the big hole first, then worry about the smaller one. It's damage control.

astralis
22 Jul 10,, 18:59
this sounds raunchy somehow.

dalem
22 Jul 10,, 19:04
Fine. You can concentrate on making the ship sink to the right. I am going to try to keep it afloat.

Why can't we do both?

-dale

Roosveltrepub
22 Jul 10,, 20:22
But is it the Dem's fault that they deliberately chose to score political points over sound governance?

-dale

Edit to add: By the way, I think this whole thing is hilarious. Poke a liberal/Democrat about any hot-button issue and it's never their fault or responsibility, or better yet, "everybody does it", especially if that's not true. They don't suffer from shame or guilt when prominent members break the law but any conservative/Republican that falls short of the liberal/Democratic interpretation of the conservative/Republican ideal tarnishes the whole apple barrel in their eyes.

They are arrogant, spoiled, and ignorant children, permanently socketed into the emotional equivalent of a 12 year old girl.

I know you are but what am I:tongue:

How about that 30hr delay in unemployment checks being cut? Was that mean spirited or sound governance or obstructionist?

Regardless, of any of the hullabaloo over this issue all they have to do is cast a vote. Now, since voting yes is sound goverance from your pov can I accuse republicans who vote no of choosing scoring political points over sound governance?Both sides are attempting to score points. My feeling is like some of the supplemental defense bills that had poison pills for democrats and they had to make a choice the Republicans got outmanuevered in what really is just sop for politics in Washington the last 16 years.

dalem
22 Jul 10,, 21:41
So fine, we'll stick with your "everybody does it" stance. Is it bad or good?

-dale

Roosveltrepub
22 Jul 10,, 23:08
So fine, we'll stick with your "everybody does it" stance. Is it bad or good?

-dale

of course it's bad but it's now the culture. Dems don't whine that Dems do it but Republicans do and visa versa. Remember he was for it before he was against it?

bonehead
23 Jul 10,, 04:44
Fix the big hole first, then worry about the smaller one. It's damage control.

No, it's not damage control. It is called DENIAL. Both holes are more than sufficient to sink the boat and neither hole is repairable under the current system. We have to fix with both holes at once or there really is no point.

bonehead
23 Jul 10,, 04:55
Why can't we do both?

-dale

HELLO! That line of thinking is what got us here in the first place. Do you like where we are now? If we are to fix this we are going to need more than 51% of the population on board, and they are going to have to be on board for more than a voting cycle or two. Unfortunately, under the current system that is just not going to happen.

dalem
23 Jul 10,, 10:01
of course it's bad but it's now the culture. Dems don't whine that Dems do it but Republicans do and visa versa. Remember he was for it before he was against it?

So again, it's "bad", but it's okay because everyone does it.

Do you have another chorus?

-dale

highsea
23 Jul 10,, 17:24
the roll calls are because the votes have been painful to make. This one is too. It's not the Dems faukt they made an idiotic pledge.Listen to yourself. The bill was introduced by the dems. The dems control every minute of the US Congress, and every bill that gets introduced. They write special rules for each bill, one-by-one, as it suits their purposes. They wrote the rule for this bill to require a supermajority to pass.

THEN- They spent 30 minutes arguing passionately for it's passage, taking turns getting up and making grand speeches on how vitally important it was.

All they had to do was nothing- NOTHING, and it was passed.

They killed it by calling for the roll call vote. This was an intentional and planned outcome.

You can argue whether or not the repubs earmark moratorium is idiotic- that's not the issue here. The issue is the hypocrisy showed by the dems in introducing a bill, arguing for it's support, which passed on voice vote and which they proceeded to kill by objecting.

Why introduce it at all, if they had no intention of passing it?

I'll tell you exactly why- they want the tariffs, but they want to blame the repubs for them.

It's Washington at it's sleeziest, and you refuse to see it because it's coming from your side.

It's politics before prosperity. By attacking businesses in a free market society, they are going after the working man too- the very people they claim to be representing.

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 17:25
No Dale it's bad and no one will stop doing it. I am writing an email to both of my Senators and my Rep within the hour to decry this as politics as usual. Now, will you do the same about the 30hr delay on unemployment? Till people tell the folks that actually get their votes it won't stop. Rosa Delaura cares as much for forcing this vote as JIm Demint cares about the 30 hr delay. It plays to the base.

highsea
23 Jul 10,, 17:29
^^^ There wouldn't have been a 30 hour delay if Harry Reid would have accepted Mitch McConnell's offer back on July 2 of a stand-alone extension that was paid for.

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 17:40
^^^ There wouldn't have been a 30 hour delay if Harry Reid would have accepted Mitch McConnell's offer back on July 2 of a stand-alone extension that was paid for.

There we go. Both sides defend the wrong. The 30 hr delay was after no hope of defeating it remained. What purpose other than the same one the dems had on the tariffs did it serve? I missed it did they have the vote yet?

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 18:05
NAM Takes On Unlikely Foe in Tariff Scrum | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/14676932-1.html) Well seems NAM isn't blaming the Democrats. I'd bet it passes it really does have bipartisan support. The Dems are doing what is wrong but both sides are equally responsible for and are scoring some points as well. If anyone thinks one party or the other is less dedicated to causung or forcing votes that help them and hurt the opposition I think maybe they've become part of the problem and why this kind of crap is constant now. THe partisan hack cable news channels MSNBC and FAUX pound these votes home to the viewers. My bet is Faux will barely mention this when it does pass and MSNBC will kill republicans on earmarks. I can't for the life of me believe the Republican leadership won't give enough safe Reps the go ahead to vote yes for this to fail.

Tariff reductions that are highly targeted are earmarks. A smarter play for Republicans might be to announce in an effort to aid USA manufacturers they are supporting all reductions on component tariffs.

highsea
23 Jul 10,, 18:16
There we go. Both sides defend the wrong.I didn't defend anything. I pointed out that it wouldn't have been an issue if the dems had agreed to the deal that was offered up 3 weeks ago. The repubs weren't opposed to the extensions, they were opposed to adding them to the deficit.

I watched the debates, and I didn't hear a single republican oppose the extensions, contrary to what the dems are claiming.

The 30 hr delay was after no hope of defeating it remained. What purpose other than the same one the dems had on the tariffs did it serve?There is never hope of defeating a bill the dems want to pass. The votes aren't there. The "delay" as you call it, (actually just debate time), was used to argue for paying for the extensions.

I missed it did they have the vote yet?The tariff bill? Yes, it passed. 129 repubs voted in favor in spite of the earmark definition. The dems extracted their pound of flesh.

Now it goes to the Senate.

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 18:30
I didn't defend anything. I pointed out that it wouldn't have been an issue if the dems had agreed to the deal that was offered up 3 weeks ago. The repubs weren't opposed to the extensions, they were opposed to adding them to the deficit.

I watched the debates, and I didn't hear a single republican oppose the extensions, contrary to what the dems are claiming.
There is never hope of defeating a bill the dems want to pass. The votes aren't there. The "delay" as you call it, (actually just debate time), was used to argue for paying for the extensions.
The tariff bill? Yes, it passed. 129 repubs voted in favor in spite of the earmark definition. The dems extracted their pound of flesh.

Now it goes to the Senate.

To say they needed to debate after doing the modern version of a filibuster is at best disengenious and at worst naive on your part.

I'd imagine the 129 was close to the number needed with a small cushion? I won't argue it's ugly or right just that people who jump on the opposition when they are forced into it are the problem. Kerry may of lost the Presidency to the tactic. I don't have a single thing negative to say on the yes votes by Republicans.

highsea
23 Jul 10,, 18:38
To say they needed to debate after doing the modern version of a filibuster is at best disengenious and at worst naive on your part.Then I guess you don't understand the process. The cloture vote only brings it to the floor, debate still takes place. I for one don't want anything passed without debate.

In fact, I want to see OPEN debate on every spending bill, large or small. Something the dems haven't allowed in 3-1/2 years.

I'd imagine the 129 was close to the number needed with a small cushion? I won't argue it's ugly or right just that people who jump on the opposition when they are forced into it are the problem. Kerry may of lost the Presidency to the tactic. I don't have a single thing negative to say on the yes votes by Republicans.No, the 129 was well over the top. The total was 378-43.

The tactic was intended to split the repubs on the matter, and it worked. 42 of the nay votes were repubs who stood firm.

Funny thing is, I'm not really in favor of the suspensions- I just despise the tactics used. I'd rather see the tariffs reinstated and give a chance for US manufacturers to make the products at home.

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 18:56
Then I guess you don't understand the process. The cloture vote only brings it to the floor, debate still takes place. I for one don't want anything passed without debate.

In fact, I want to see OPEN debate on every spending bill, large or small. Something the dems haven't allowed in 3-1/2 years.
No, the 129 was well over the top. The total was 378-43.

The tactic was intended to split the repubs on the matter, and it worked. 42 of the nay votes were repubs who stood firm.

Funny thing is, I'm not really in favor of the suspensions- I just despise the tactics used. I'd rather see the tariffs reinstated and give a chance for US manufacturers to make the products at home.

I understood most of the tariffs to be component targetted not not finished product tariffs am I wrong? There is value in reducing component tariffs if the items aren't high tech or components that have had signifigant value added already. Something like cheap leather for golf bags means we dont have some crappy tannery jobs but we also don't have the waste and the finished product exports better. Anything that aids higher end production here and creates a symbiotic relationship with a country shipping components for a high value finished product is good for us in the long run. I know in the Aircraft industry companies may buy items like bolts. rivets etc overseas but the benefit to US workers is more than the loss in increased exports due to cost competitveness and the goverment of the screw or rivet maker feeling some internal pressures to buy the US product.

highsea
23 Jul 10,, 20:48
I understood most of the tariffs to be component targetted not not finished product tariffs am I wrong?You'd have to read the bill. There are hundreds of targeted suspensions, some put in by congresscritters who have left the gov't years ago. Once they are in, they stay in. They are mostly company specific, as I understand it.

So the beneficiaries are companies like DOW, Nike, Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, etc. If you had a friendly senator or representative, you could get one of these exemptions.

Special favors. It's still the gov't picking winners and losers, imo. CBO says the exemptions cost something like $300 Billion.

My objection is that it takes away the opportunity for small companies to compete in these areas, since they have to go head to head with slave labor/no safety or environmental regs, etc.

Roosveltrepub
23 Jul 10,, 21:09
You'd have to read the bill. There are hundreds of targeted suspensions, some put in by congresscritters who have left the gov't years ago. Once they are in, they stay in. They are mostly company specific, as I understand it.

So the beneficiaries are companies like DOW, Nike, Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, etc. If you had a friendly senator or representative, you could get one of these exemptions.

Special favors. It's still the gov't picking winners and losers, imo. CBO says the exemptions cost something like $300 Billion.

My objection is that it takes away the opportunity for small companies to compete in these areas, since they have to go head to head with slave labor/no safety or environmental regs, etc.

Sounds like a chance for Congressmen to be purchased then.

bonehead
26 Jul 10,, 00:11
You'd have to read the bill. There are hundreds of targeted suspensions, some put in by congresscritters who have left the gov't years ago. Once they are in, they stay in. They are mostly company specific, as I understand it.

So the beneficiaries are companies like DOW, Nike, Wal-Mart, Ralph Lauren, etc. If you had a friendly senator or representative, you could get one of these exemptions.

Special favors. It's still the gov't picking winners and losers, imo. CBO says the exemptions cost something like $300 Billion.

My objection is that it takes away the opportunity for small companies to compete in these areas, since they have to go head to head with slave labor/no safety or environmental regs, etc.

Thats just one of the many fine examples of the really big businesses putting the screws to the small business. The government makes the laws but the big businesses are the ones with all the money and are pulling the strings. We have to separate government from the big corporate teat before we can get this country back on course.

bonehead
26 Jul 10,, 00:22
Here's a crazy, off the wall idea. Lets create some real decent paying jobs to replace the ones we have lost the last 7 years. Then congress would not need to posture over unemployment benefits. Put the political bull crap behind us and get the country back to work. Then it will be time to examine those still not working and see if they warrant getting benefits or not.

Genosaurer
26 Jul 10,, 01:28
Here's a crazy, off the wall idea. Lets create some real decent paying jobs to replace the ones we have lost the last 7 years.

That's not an idea, it's a wish. For it to be an idea, you'd need to have some way of actually implementing it.

bonehead
26 Jul 10,, 03:07
That's not an idea, it's a wish. For it to be an idea, you'd need to have some way of actually implementing it.

Ah but there is. Pretty much academic after you remove the two current political powers that are standing in the way of the jobs.

highsea
26 Jul 10,, 16:19
Thats just one of the many fine examples of the really big businesses putting the screws to the small business. The government makes the laws but the big businesses are the ones with all the money and are pulling the strings.You can't blame the businesses. If the gov't offers the incentives, businesses would be negligent if they didn't take advantage of them. HP doesn't care about some mom and pop startup, they care about HP. If they can get cheap ink from overseas, that's what they will do. It's their responsibility to their shareholders to do exactly that.

Blame the congressman that takes the campaign money in exchange for the favor, that's where the fault lies. His responsibility isn't to HP, it's to the country as a whole. He's the enabler. And look, he thinks he is supporting jobs in his district- and he is doing that. But he doesn't consider the other effects. For him, it's win/win. He gets campaign money, and he helps a company in his district.

It's the gov't who is tilting the playing field, not the company that pays a small amount of money (relatively speaking) in exchange for a huge payoff. They'd be idiots not to take advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself.

I'm not anti-trade, I'm pro-trade. I just want a level playing field.

bonehead
26 Jul 10,, 16:59
You can't blame the businesses. If the gov't offers the incentives, businesses would be negligent if they didn't take advantage of them. HP doesn't care about some mom and pop startup, they care about HP. If they can get cheap ink from overseas, that's what they will do. It's their responsibility to their shareholders to do exactly that.

Blame the congressman that takes the campaign money in exchange for the favor, that's where the fault lies. His responsibility isn't to HP, it's to the country as a whole. He's the enabler. And look, he thinks he is supporting jobs in his district- and he is doing that. But he doesn't consider the other effects. For him, it's win/win. He gets campaign money, and he helps a company in his district.

It's the gov't who is tilting the playing field, not the company that pays a small amount of money (relatively speaking) in exchange for a huge payoff. They'd be idiots not to take advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself.

I'm not anti-trade, I'm pro-trade. I just want a level playing field.

Yes, you can blame business as they are a big part of the problem. They now have the resources, lawyers, time and money to effectively buy legislation. Govt does not "offer incentives" Those incentives are bought by the big corporations who are now throwing so much money into lobbying that there is no way they are not controlling government. Some government entities are now too closely connected with big business, the FDA for instance. This is nothing short of legalized bribery. If you want a level playing field you are going to have to pull a billion or so dollars out of your ass and wave it at a politician. Otherwise you are tilting windmills as big business shelled out a lot of money to buy government and they are not about to give up those opportunities that come with it.
Now for the salt. Look at the businesses that got bailed out. The largest ones that had close ties with government got the money. How many small businesses got bailed out? How many blue collar workers got bailed out? Now some of those big businesses are making great profits yet that is not transferring into more jobs and a better economy for the small businesses or those out of work.

highsea
26 Jul 10,, 17:34
Yes, you can blame business as they are a big part of the problem. They now have the resources, lawyers, time and money to effectively buy legislation. Govt does not "offer incentives" Those incentives are bought by the big corporations who are now throwing so much money into lobbying that there is no way they are not controlling government.These businesses complain to gov't when they think there are punitive tariffs. They have that right. The unions are no less influential.

The MTB is old legislation. That wasn't written by businesses, it was written by Congress. Of course businesses are going to push for favors, that's the system as passed by the Congress.

I've already said I don't think it's fair to small companies. But I don't blame the businesses that are taking advantage of it- they have a responsibility to their shareholders to use the system to their best advantage.

Some government entities are now too closely connected with big business, the FDA for instance. This is nothing short of legalized bribery.So reform the gov't.

...How many blue collar workers got bailed out?GM, Chrysler.....

bonehead
27 Jul 10,, 02:48
So reform the gov't.
GM, Chrysler.....

You can't reform government until you remove the money and the strings to big business. As it now stands, virtually no one in the government can resist (if they wanted to or not) the kind of money and power the big business wields on capital hill.

GM? Chrysler? The company got the money. The blue collar workers got the lay-off notice.

highsea
27 Jul 10,, 03:08
You can't reform government until you remove the money and the strings to big business. As it now stands, virtually no one in the government can resist (if they wanted to or not) the kind of money and power the big business wields on capital hill.Barf. Oh, those poor Senators, they just can't resist....:rolleyes:

So will you do the same for the unions? Who was Obama's biggest contributor? Who has visited the White House more than any other person during this administration?

GM? Chrysler? The company got the money. The blue collar workers got the lay-off notice.The UAW was handed 15% of the stock, for doing absolutely nothing, while the secured bondholders got the shaft. That was the reward for running the companies into the ground. Aside from Phony and Fraudie, the automakers will be the biggest cost to the taxpayers of the bailouts.

Obama signed an executive order that all federal building repairs had to be performed by union labor. He's done plenty for the blue-collar worker, usually at the expense of the non-union blue collar worker.

He gave the ATC union everything they were asking for, after years of haggling under Bush for a better deal for the taxpayer. Good-bye to the B-scale for new hires, hello 200K salaries and 100K pensions.

The dems love the blue collar guys, as long as they are union. They just hate the employers and the taxpayer, lol.

Julie
27 Jul 10,, 05:29
The Unions don't fuel the economy. The employers and the taxpayers do.

bonehead
27 Jul 10,, 08:52
The Unions don't fuel the economy. The employers and the taxpayers do.

That extra spending money from construction union worker's higher wages does impact the economy in a positive fashion.

bonehead
27 Jul 10,, 09:19
Barf. Oh, those poor Senators, they just can't resist....:rolleyes:

So will you do the same for the unions? Who was Obama's biggest contributor? Who has visited the White House more than any other person during this administration?
The UAW was handed 15% of the stock, for doing absolutely nothing, while the secured bondholders got the shaft. That was the reward for running the companies into the ground. Aside from Phony and Fraudie, the automakers will be the biggest cost to the taxpayers of the bailouts.

Obama signed an executive order that all federal building repairs had to be performed by union labor. He's done plenty for the blue-collar worker, usually at the expense of the non-union blue collar worker.

He gave the ATC union everything they were asking for, after years of haggling under Bush for a better deal for the taxpayer. Good-bye to the B-scale for new hires, hello 200K salaries and 100K pensions.

The dems love the blue collar guys, as long as they are union. They just hate the employers and the taxpayer, lol.

You do not have to look too hard to see that the GM management, or rather mismanagement, wrecked the company. Playing the stock market is always risky and is never a sure thing. Rest assured highsea, GM's top guys still had their golden parachutes, something none of us have. However, there are many who "used" to work directly for GM including the UAW who are still with out a job, and there are many more who worked indirectly for GM who have also lost their jobs. Where is their bailout? Oh yeah it went to wall street. The vast majority of the money government has spent has been given at the top and damned little has trickled down to the small businesses and the average Joe's. Creating a few million well paying jobs is what the blue collar needs the most. It is what the economy needs the most.

The executive order for PLA is for projects over 25 million (if that is what you are referring to). Nor does a PLA preclude non union contractors, all they have to do is sign the agreement. If the Dems love the unions so much why were they so eager to tax their negotiated healthcare benefits?

highsea
27 Jul 10,, 17:48
However, there are many who "used" to work directly for GM including the UAW who are still with out a job, and there are many more who worked indirectly for GM who have also lost their jobs. Where is their bailout? Very few union jobs were lost. Most of the lost jobs were from Obama's car czar shutting down thousands of private dealerships. Non-union jobs, of course.

GM and Chrysler would have been in bankruptcy without the bailout. You can hardly argue that there was no benefit to the UAW.

The executive order for PLA is for projects over 25 million (if that is what you are referring to). Nor does a PLA preclude non union contractors, all they have to do is sign the agreement. If the Dems love the unions so much why were they so eager to tax their negotiated healthcare benefits?How many federal construction contracts are under $25 million?

The PLA requires that contractors enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a recongized union.
(e) The term "project labor agreement" as used in this order means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f).

Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFedera lConstructionProjects/)
It's a union handout. One of dozens offered up by Obama.

bonehead
28 Jul 10,, 03:15
Very few union jobs were lost. Most of the lost jobs were from Obama's car czar shutting down thousands of private dealerships. Non-union jobs, of course.

GM and Chrysler would have been in bankruptcy without the bailout. You can hardly argue that there was no benefit to the UAW.
How many federal construction contracts are under $25 million?

The PLA requires that contractors enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a recongized union. It's a union handout. One of dozens offered up by Obama.

Effects of the 2008-2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008-2010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_Stat es)

0ver 80,000 lost union jobs is more that a very few. I did not argue that the UAW benefitted from the bail out. What I will argue is that helping the UAW was not the reason for the GM bailout.

You can attempt to argue that the reinstatement of a PLA is a union handout, but then Bush gave the non union a handout when his executive order ended the PLA agreement. Bush really helped the economy with that one huh? The important thing is that ANY company can come in, sign the agreement, and bid the work. No one is forcing the companies either way. The choice remains with the company.

highsea
28 Jul 10,, 03:45
...The important thing is that ANY company can come in, sign the agreement, and bid the work. No one is forcing the companies either way. The choice remains with the company.You don't say.

Please provide a link to the agreement you are referring to.

Julie
28 Jul 10,, 05:32
That extra spending money from construction union worker's higher wages does impact the economy in a positive fashion.And non-union small business owners getting kicked to the curb.

I would much rather see thousands more working with lower pay than a choice few making a bunch.

Roosveltrepub
28 Jul 10,, 14:50
And non-union small business owners getting kicked to the curb.

I would much rather see thousands more working with lower pay than a choice few making a bunch.

It takes as many people as it takes to build a road or bridge. What you pay them doesn't effect the number needed. Low wage jobs mean food, fuel, housing gets paid for and that's it. Those Union wage jobs allow people to pay a mortgage rather than default, pay the car loan or buy a car, washing machine, go to vacation in Fla or the gulf and maybe even send a kid to college etc etc. What you seem to be advocating is more working poor is good. The jobs are still available at Mcdonalds, 99, chilis but only because someone can afford to take their family out and eat that crap. Poor people don't eat out.
If a company is big enough to bid on a construction job they aren't getting kicked to the curb. Handling a 25 million dollar contract isnt something a 5 man Mom and Pop driveway company will be doing or should be is it? You want them to bid, then hire 30 more people, get equipment and learn how to build a highway on your dime?

highsea
28 Jul 10,, 18:00
Effects of the 2008-2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008-2010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_Stat es)

0ver 80,000 lost union jobs is more that a very few. That's a crock too. Those numbers are from 1993-2008 according to your source.

We're talking about the GM and Chrysler bailouts. GM's restructuring plan called for 21,000 in reductions and Chrysler's called for 3,000. Most of those will be through attrition, not layoffs.

You still haven't shown me the "agreement" you say ANY company can sign to bid on those government construction projects.

gunnut
28 Jul 10,, 18:05
That extra spending money from construction union worker's higher wages does impact the economy in a positive fashion.

At the expense of someone getting paid less, not having a job, or everyone else paying more.

In the short term, the money is static. Giving more to some means depriving others of some.

highsea
28 Jul 10,, 18:06
And non-union small business owners getting kicked to the curb.That's exactly right Julie.

Something like 85% of construction workers in the US are non-union. Obama's EXORD forces companies to enter into union agreements with every single trade that works on a government project. Something that bonehead is willfully ignorant of.

So the carpenters will have to be union carpenters, the structural steel will have to be made by union ironworkers, the plumbers will have to be union plumbers, the electricians will have to be union electricians, the truck drivers will have to be teamsters, etc.

The company will have to enter into union contracts for every portion of the project they want to bid. They have to do this before they can even submit the bid.