’)
CNBC: “The U.S. Senate failed on Thursday night to reach a last-ditch compromise to bail out automakers, effectively killing any chance of congressional action this year. The $14 billion legislation officially died in the Senate late on Thursday after supporters failed to get enough support in a procedural vote. ”
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid: “”By rejecting every good-faith bipartisan compromise – including those from the White House and Senator Bob Corker – it is now abundantly clear that Republicans have no interest in keeping the Big Three from collapsing.
“Because Republicans failed to act, three million Americans are more likely than ever to lose their jobs and our economy is at risk of suffering even greater damage. Our hearts go out to those families who will now have to deal with this burden as the holidays near.”
>> Nikkei Tumbles as Auto Bailout Talks Fail in Senate
>> Conservative ‘No-Bailout Alternative’ For Automakers Amounts To Union-Busting
>> Bank bailout funds could be used for Detroit
>> Mathew Gross: Over The Edge
ME: I think the GOP did this for the wrong reason – to screw the unions – but at the end of the day I don’t think the auto industry made a strong enough case for this money. They didn’t sell the idea that they would really change and innovate.
Also, not surprisingly, the website for UAW has zip in response to this development and is a bear to navigate. The union movement still doesn’t get the web, and I’ve heard that from people who have worked inside there.
I’m an old retired Canadian Union Staff representative (Business Agent to my ‘Merican friends).
And I’m so MAD I could just SPIT.
(Or write some words in CAPITALS just to piss off people who get pissed off by little things.)
American (North American) business has KILLED the US economy for sure, and Canada’s, probably by next Thursday – round about 4 PM, EST is my best guess.
Some of you are all upset because the Repugs are trying to “destroy” the last remaining SERIOUS Union in the manufacturing industries. Get over it. Their destruction of the UAW – and the termination of GM’s retired employees heath care benefits is but a tiny victory – at the very end of a 30 year battle in which my side – LABOUR (yes I’ve spelled it correctly in the Queen’s English) has been CRUSHED in what can only be considered an amazingly successful campaign by Government and Management.
Bravo Management – my hat’s off to you!
American Capital has succeeded in: destroying the Unions, shipping their factories overseas, shipping their jobs overseas, keeping the US without universal health care (an amazing fact considering that at least on paper the US is a democracy and you’d think the workers would vote in their own interests at least once – even if by mistake), kept workers incomes going down (in real terms) for over 30 years, destroyed the value of EVERYONE homes, destroyed the “Miracle Financial System” that was supposed to replace the “Manufacturing System” they destroyed earlier.
In addition, then they packaged up all the little bits of puss and excrement they’ve created in their “Miracle Financial System” and sold them to every bank in the world. This toxic cocktail is now destroying the rest of the world. Bravo Encore!
This road to hell started seriously when you MORONS bought into Reagan’s “Trickle Down”, “Deregulate”, “Government is the Enemy”, INSANITY. Then the final exquisite indignity – you elected the stupidest man in the world – twice.
Oh well, tomorrow you’ll all be off to your jobs at Starbucks. Oh right – they closed the one you work at eh?
Just an FYI “Mylegacy”, there were a lot of people that voted against Republican Reagan in 1980 and again in 1984.
A MAJORITY of Americans voted against Republican Bush II in 2000 and a lot voted against him again in 2004.
Even Republican Bush I dubbed Reaganomics what it was/is: “Voodoo Economics,” before he bought into the ideology himself.
Still, Republicans are quit wedded to their money cult and the Left in America have very little voice in the media ecology that’s largely controlled by Right-wing owners.
Despite the Right-wing’s economic philosophy being responsible for the entire list of maladies you listed above, there are times when it seems that they’ll never be held culpable for how badly they’ve damaged America. Most Republicans aren’t capable of handling the truth and those that know the truth are often the predators at the top of the ponzi scheme bilking the public and so really don’t care.
The Right-wing ponzi schemers know that as long as they can con the “conservatives” that the “real” issues are abortion, gays, and guns then they can steal to their hearts content.
Perhaps those middle-class “conservatives” that have lost 30-40% of their 401k retirement funds might come to regret their votes. But at least they can cling to their guns, hate gays, and stop their kids from having abortions (because what is “values” if your not willing to live in multi-generational poverty to live up to those “values,” right?).
If there’s any bright side to the Big 3 going down the shitter, it might come in the form of “Freem Market” CEO’s realizing that the only way to stay solvent in an age of over-priced health-care is to nationalize the system.
Not to make light of the auto-workers who will more than likely lose their jobs, but I’m just trying to stay positive on this one.
I’d like to say that i’m new here so go Easy!…More over i’d like to comment on someone saying that the UAW should stay in power (so to say)…i say B.S…….They’re the reason why the Auto makers are in the shape their in!…Good Grief Man…why should anybody make 30.00’s an hour to zip 6 screws in a friggin car body??..They don’t have to lift a thing…don’t walk(there on a conveyor)..everything is handed to them…[no lifting...excessive bending...employer 401...insurance]..do i need to go on????…UAW….will be the down fall of U.S
auto market.
Unions are nothing short of “Strong-Arming”….And what gets me is; people buy in to it???….WTF????
I’ve helped wire a USNS Ship…did i make 30.00 an hour??
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!…It was 14.98…no 401,had to pay for all my Health Care,and be away from my family for months on end.
No Bail out until the UAW is DEMOLISHED!!..They just force up the price of the product up.
And just what do you think these UAW Heads do all day?[count monthly dues?]..yup!!!..or stir-up-the-pot…thinking on how too squeese out more money from the buyer…of which comes from all buyers.Tis why i won’t buy an American car ever again,when my GMC dies…dats it…
Steve
“General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they can’t last the year without federal aid, both hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Reid also urged that option.”
How likely is it that the WH will aprove part of the $700 billion to be diverted? A silver lining in the storm cloud?
Mylegacy: Most Yanks have read British authors and are familiar with difference in spelling: colour, honour, aluminium, offence, etc. You don’t need to continually defend your right to spell them this way. And stop being such a militant Canadian, which seems an oxymoron anyway. You can hate the U.S. gov’t from any location, including mine (NYC).
steve: read up on factory conditions pre-union movement and get back to us.
What’s with the correlation between hatred of labor unions and hatred of grammar on internet message boards? Weird.
An unbiased opinion from MyLegacy containing the grand unified theory of management vs. labor. (We spell it this way here in the country that seized independence from England rather than waiting around as loyal subjects, but I digress.)
Detroit’s management has a lot of blame to shoulder, but one of their gravest sins was buckling under to the outrageous demands of the UAW and having to compete against the world with a $75.00/manhour cost structure. Their timidity in past has doomed the big 3.
As for the rest of his detailed analysis, take a good look at the defenders of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. I’ll give you a clue, they weren’t Republicans. So my Canadian friend, the answer is bigger government and soft socialism like your country has embraced? We’re a different breed down here, look at how our two countries were formed.
We have plenty of weaklings here that look for the soft sugartit of a bigger government and living in a welfare state like up north. The Democrats thrive on the fear of weaklings that can’t make their own way. We’ll see a big increase in the size of the government as they try to take advantage of the current situation and grab more and more power. Perhaps some day the sheep will win and we will change into a place like Europe or Canada. A place where the sheep wait complacently and tell themselves that the wolves will never come back.
was buckling under to the outrageous demands of the UAW and having to compete against the world with a $75.00/manhour cost structure
Lie.
And the stuff you’re pushing about CRA/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is equally untrue.
Thank God you guys won’t have any control in the near future.
“They didn’t sell the idea that they would really change and innovate.”
I agree.
They should have told them, ‘If you want the money you will have to increase the fuel efficiency standards as high as they are in the U.K., where you sell vehicles now. And you have to do it by the end of 2009. And if you tell me it can’t be done, we will have you arrested for lying under oath.’
“…but one of their gravest sins was buckling under to the outrageous demands of the UAW and having to compete against the world with a $75.00/manhour cost structure. Their timidity in past has doomed the big 3.”
Speaking of lying.
At least you didn’t start your post with “LOL”.
“So my Canadian friend, the answer is bigger government and soft socialism like your country has embraced? We’re a different breed down here, look at how our two countries were formed.”
Yes. And Canada has the number one banking system in the world. The greatest weakness in our economy is the collapse in your economy. We’ve had a balanced budget for a decade now. We spend less money on health care than the American government does, and we get better results.
So before you attack Canada and praise the United States, you should look at the facts.
We have plenty of weaklings here that look for the soft sugartit of a bigger government and living in a welfare state like up north.
Ten bucks says AO is unemployed and lives at his parents house.
Labor cost in an automobile includes the cost of retirees. It is a labor cost from the past projected into the present.
While the current workers don’t “see” the money it is part of the cost of labor and they are indirectly paying for it.
I’m interested in the metrics of the number one banking system in the world. So am I to assume that CSS is a canuck too. Makes sense. Like Europe, Canada lives under the assumption that if push comes to shove we would protect her militarily because she can’t. We subsidize the economies of both Europe and Canada by paying for the military they depend on.
Oliver, lowering lending standards for minorities for political gain is only part of the problem. There is plenty of blame enough to go around. You should study the records and rhetoric of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and the role that Fannie and Freddie play in the mortgage liquidity game. Then educate yourself about how the money trail works from the construction loan to the the credit default insurance.
Labor cost in an automobile includes the cost of retirees. It is a labor cost from the past projected into the present.
While the current workers don’t “see” the money it is part of the cost of labor and they are indirectly paying for it.
AO, it’s a deeply misleading shell game to count the cost of retiree benefits and current employee benefits against current revenues. That’s having it both ways.
Either count the cost of retiree benefits against the revenues earned back when those workers were building cars, or postpone recognizing the costs of benefits to current workers until they’re paid–sometime way in the future.
The only reason to count past benefits and future benefits against current revenue is to stack the deck.
General Motors had offered buyouts to all of its 74,000 U.S. hourly employees. [5] Those workers could have elected to take a lump-sum payment of $45,000 or $62,500, depending on their job description, and retire with full benefits. [6]
Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio, a strong bailout supporter, said the UAW was willing to make the cuts – but not until 2011.
http://nomedals.blogspot.com
is were citations are posted
“Like Europe, Canada lives under the assumption that if push comes to shove we would protect her militarily because she can’t. We subsidize the economies of both Europe and Canada by paying for the military they depend on. “
Yet another steaming pile of stupid with a dollop of duh.
The leading recipient of U.S. arms sales is Saudi Arabia. The leading recipient of US military training is Columbia. Canada and Europe (minus the newest NATO ally Poland) are nowhere in the top 20 in either category.
Canada lives under the assumption that if push comes to shove we would protect her militarily because she can’t.
Protect Canada? From who? The polar bears?
Labor cost in an automobile includes the cost of retirees. It is a labor cost from the past projected into the present. While the current workers don’t “see” the money it is part of the cost of labor and they are indirectly paying for it.
This is what’s always so fascinating about your average hard core conservative. When they’re wrong in so many more ways than just the initially regurgitated “fact” would suggest.
Yes, I’m sure the failure of the real estate market has nothing to do with the fact that neither the SEC, Congressional committees (overseen by the GOP for 90% of the past decade), or federal regulators did a thing.
The union was offered a deal to get the auto makers the bail-out money, and the union said…………NO THANKS!
The union has offered nothing, proposed nothing, and has been invisible in this entire mess.
Let GM and Chrysler go C-11 and work it out…………..the hard way.
CSS: “They didn’t sell the idea that they would really change and innovate.”
I agree.
They should have told them, ‘If you want the money you will have to increase the fuel efficiency standards as high as they are in the U.K., where you sell vehicles now. And you have to do it by the end of 2009. And if you tell me it can’t be done, we will have you arrested for lying under oath.’
Ditto.
It stll just amazes me that Congress had to essentially tell them after their first visit to go back to Detroit and get a plan together. What reasonable businessman expects to walk into a bank and say “Loan me money. You don’t need to see my business plan.”??
So to CSS’s requirements I’d add ‘If you want the money you have to show me exactly what you plan to do with it, including all of the places you’re going to trim and control expenses (I’m looking at you executive salaries, perks and bonuses), and exactly how the changes you are going to make will result in your being able to pay back the loan.’
“Like Europe, Canada lives under the assumption that if push comes to shove we would protect her militarily because she can’t…”
The ugly truth comes out. America’s MAIN threat is Putin’s head rising over Alaska. Canada’s MAIN threat is Palin’s head rising over Canada. It’s so SCARY I’ve thought of moving to Saint Pierre Miquelon (two tiny French owned islands in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence).
To our (very few) union haters – the US financial system has just lost over 4 trillion bucks over the past 12 months. Do you think America would have been better off if that 4 trillion had been earned in Union Wages, and was in EVERY workers pocket rather than in the bank accounts of less than one half of one percent of the richest guys in the universe?
Amused 0: The Democrats thrive on the fear of weaklings that can’t make their own way. We’ll see a big increase in the size of the government as they try to take advantage of the current situation and grab more and more power.
There are a few ways to measure the size of government, but two of the most common are the amount of government spending and the size of the national debt.
In the 36 years from 1968 to 2004 has increased more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones.
President: Total Fed Spending Growth / Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Growth
Nixon (R): 5.3% / 22.5%
Nixon/Ford (R): 19.9 / 35.0
Carter (D): 17.2 / 7.6
Reagan (R): 14.5 / -9.7
Reagan (R): 7.4 / 0.2
Bush 41 (R): 7.8 / 13.9
Clinton (D): 4.2 / 0.7
Clinton (D): 8.1 / 14.4
Bush 43 (R): 19.7 / 25.3
based on the Budget of the US FY2005 and the Budget Historical Tables and CBO outlook and review January 2004. (Bush 43 numbers are conservative estimates.)
Average per Republican term:
Total Federal Spending: up 12.4%
Non-Defense Discretionary: up 14.5%
Average per Democratic term:
Total Federal Spending: up 9.8%
Non-Defense Discretionary: up 7.5%
As for the National Debt, over the same time period it also increased more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones.
Republican average: up 750 billion (as % of GDP: up 6%)
Democratic average: up 570 billion (as % of GDP: down 4%)
So, tell me again, which party tends to increase the size of government?
AO won’t reply to that. His monocle fell out when he read it, into the Community Chest.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there Sean.
You’re telling me that Republicans say one thing, but then they do exactly the opposite?
I am so shocked!
What reasonable businessman expects to walk into a bank and say “Loan me money. You don’t need to see my business plan.”??
The answer is bankers.
“Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM’s total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.”
While some, like yourself Mr. Willis, might view the ~$70 an hour number as some sort of rhetorical bullshit, it does represent a real number, and it translates the real expenses the automakers have into a number those who are not familiar w/ the intricacies of labor, wages, pension, and healthcare benefits can understand at a glance. And, since it can be used on ALL automakers operating in the US, it’s a handy way to compare the current and legacy costs across manufacturers.
The simple fact is that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have legacy costs which influence how much they can charge for their vehicles and still turn a profit. It is a cost which their competitors operating in the US do not have. It is an entirely self-inflicted cost on the part of their management, no one made them sign the contracts w/ the UAW. They could have taken their lumps decades ago by suffering strikes, locking the workers out, and trying to break the union then. Instead they agreed to a compensation plan which was only sustainable while they had a near-monopoly on vehicles sold in the US.
You take the formula used to reach that ~$70 per hour for the domestic automakers and use it on the foreign plants operating in the US and you it’s in the mid $40s. BMW, Honda, Toyota, and the rest simply don’t have to pay as much to make their vehicles. And with the perception of the superior quality of the foreign vehicles, the domestics are behind the eight ball.
I’m sure that a company like Tesla Motors would love to be able to get their hands on some of GM’s equipment at bankruptacy auction prices.
Bruce – I know I’m not the only one that laughed at that.
Sean – Awesome. TFJ, amigo.
While some, like yourself Mr. Willis, might view the ~$70 an hour number as some sort of rhetorical bullshit, it does represent a real number, and it translates the real expenses the automakers have into a number those who are not familiar w/ the intricacies of labor, wages, pension, and healthcare benefits can understand at a glance.
Almost right, SFC. It’s a number that the uninitiated will misunderstand at a glance. It’s apples and pineapples.
This number mixes up obligations at the time they’re incurred with obligations at the time they’re paid. If you want to look at the problem from a cash flow point of view, it’s fair to include the cost of benefits to retirees–that’s cash out the door today.
But if you’re going to do that, it’s only fair to also exclude benefits for current workers that won’t be paid until later. The automakers aren’t laying out cash today for benefits for future pensioners.
mmmmm… pineapples…
So, any idea what such a number would be if it were to be calculated as you mention Quaker?
Since the foreign automakers aren’t laying out as much money on their current employees as the Big Three are, it still seems that the Big Three are screwed. They’re paying more money for current employees. They’re paying more money for former employees. Even if everything else were equal between the domestic makers and the foreign ones, they’d be hurting because of their labor costs.
The fact their management has been clueless at best only exacerbates the problem.
I wonder who will buy Saturn when GM has to sell off the brand.
But if you’re going to do that, it’s only fair to also exclude benefits for current workers that won’t be paid until later.
Hey, and while were comparing wages and benefits, can we please compare the wages of the Big Three CEOs compared to their foreign competition?
If were talking REAL costs here, executive compensation should be factored in, as well. Or are executive salaries paid from magic money trees that only grow in Detroit?
So, any idea what such a number would be if it were to be calculated as you mention Quaker?
You expect me to find your mistake and fix it for you? I thought you conservative types were all about self reliance.
Maybe the costs are less at Toyota and Honda because the Japanese government picks up most of the tab.
Once again, the lack of a decent national health care system bites the little guy in the ass and the idiot brigade is happy to dance on their own graves.
QiaB: Whoa, whoa, whoa there Sean.
You’re telling me that Republicans say one thing, but then they do exactly the opposite?
I am so shocked!
Then stand ready to be electrified, because they also say things as if they were facts which actually have nothing to do with reality.
Fortunately, the posting of actual supported facts makes them vanish. Seen Amused O since my prior posting?
fafaroo: Hey, and while were comparing wages and benefits, can we please compare the wages of the Big Three CEOs compared to their foreign competition?
Ford Alan Mulally – per CNN Money 4/5/07: His base salary … works out to annual pay of about $2 million. He also received restricted stock grants, which the company valued at $920,404, as well as 3 million stock options valued at $7.8 million. The stock options are not yet exercisable, and they have an exercise price of $8.28, or about 4 percent above current prices.
GM G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. – per NY Times 12/12/08: He was paid about $24 million a year in 2006 and 2007 from a combination of salary, stock option grants and other forms of compensation. His 2008 base salary is $2.2 million.
Chrysler Robert Nardelli – per Financial Times 8/6/07: Bob Nardelli will collect a nominal salary of $1 a year in his new role as chief executive of Chrysler … Mr Nardelli faced an avalanche of criticism over his $210m severance package from US retailer Home Depot in January. “We are not going to disclose specifics,” said the new Chrysler chairman and chief executive”.
Toyota – per Newsvine 11/19/08: Although Japanese CEO pay is not publicly disclosed, it is estimated to be only a fraction of what U.S. automaker CEOs make. For example, the estimated pay of Toyota’s CEO in 2005 was under $1 million.
Nissan Carlos Ghosn – per International herald Tribue 6/16/06: Nissan Motor said that last year it paid Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive, and 10 other top executives an average of about $2 million in total compensation. [italics added].
Volkswagen Martin Winterkorn – per Business Week: Total Annual Compensation €4,925,996 (~$6.6 million) as of Fiscal Year 2007
Sean comes through with a well thought out factual post. Going back to high school civics, it is the legislative branch that creates budgets. The president merely signs off or not. Political realities often tie his hands. Your post was informative but doesn’t tell the entire story.
It is a sad fact of life that government always strives to grow, under both Republican and Democratic hands. The best that can be said is that it probably would grow more under a Democratic administration and legislature than a Republican one. I’ve said before that the Republicans function best as a party of opposition, keeping Democrat’s stupid ideas from fruition. When left to their own devices they have a tendency to do Democrat lite, witness the Bush administration.
But other than trying to shrink the military point out to me the examples of the Democrats pushing for a smaller less intrusive government.
PD100, talk about stupid. LOL if you can’t tell the difference between military aid to the Saudis and military bases in Europe you probably also can’t comprehend how Canada dwells under an umbrella of U.S. protection.
MyLegacy, At this point I doubt that our main threat is Russia. But if it were Russia, they aren’t going to mess with us directly. The benefits of a robust military and mutually assured destruction you know. Your concerns about Sarah Palin’s Alaska National Guard threatening Canada are probably unfounded. I’m sure they are tougher than Canada’s military but they probably couldn’t hold much more than Vancouver Island or the west coast. Still it’s probably best not to provoke her.
Fafaroo,
I’ll see your $10 and raise you a grand.
Another wager I’d make is you and the majority of the liberal commentators here have never ran a business, never had to sweat payroll, insurance, ridiculous government intervention or any of the other challenges to running your own show, as I have for 20 years.
Quaker, I think as usual you have missed the bigger point. It would seem obvious but then you never fail to misunderstand reality. Detroit’s cost’s for labor either past workers or present is much higher than their competition. That makes it much harder to compete.
Going back to high school civics, it is the legislative branch that creates budgets.
AO,
Snark loses it’s bite when you’re wrong about the very facts you accuse someone else of bungling:
I think as usual you have missed the bigger point. It would seem obvious but then you never fail to misunderstand reality. Detroit’s cost’s for labor either past workers or present is much higher than their competition.
I haven’t missed it. You have changed it. No one has claimed Detroit’s costs are NOT higher. What we’re discussing is the validity of the $70 an hour figure.
AO, you have never been right about anything since you got here. Why the hell do you keep coming back for more punishment?
<i?Protect Canada? From who? The polar bears?
Santa’s Elfin Horde.
So, are we not able to buy European models of cars in this country because our standards are too high or not good enough? And why is that? Because Detroit can’t compete with itself in another market?
Something just ain’t right about that. If I could get a diesel Smart Car in this country, I’d be rocking about 85 MPG, but you can’t get a diesel Smart in this country.
More evidence that the automakers should be asking Exxon Mobil for financial help and not the taxpayers.
Got this email yesterday, dunno if y’all got it too.
Amused 0: Going back to high school civics, it is the legislative branch that creates budgets. The president merely signs off or not. Political realities often tie his hands. Your post was informative but doesn’t tell the entire story.
You sure about that, A0? You wanna try again? When was the last time you heard about Congress submitting their budget to Congress? With the budget, the President doesn’t “merely” do anything.
In fact (there’s that pesky word again), the President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))[3] states: “On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following: [lengthy list of 33 items]”
Amused 0: The best that can be said is that it probably would grow more under a Democratic administration and legislature than a Republican one.
Prove it. It took me all of 2 minutes to find the info in my earlier post and about 30 seconds to find the support for the facts I’ve given above.
I give you supported facts and you don’t like them because they contradict your bogus view of reality, and all you can come up with in return is “The best that can be said is … probably”??
Show something to support your statements or just STFU.
Amused 0: I’ve said before that the Republicans function best as a party of opposition, keeping Democrat’s stupid ideas from fruition. When left to their own devices they have a tendency to do Democrat lite, witness the Bush administration.
The utter illogic, hypocrisy and just utter stupidity of this statement is astounding on just, just so many levels I can barely know where to begin. Republicans serve best as disruptors because they make a mess of things when they are in a position to pursue their policies? Republicans can’t be counted on to actually DO anything, just to STOP things? And when the Republicans are in charge they aren’t really Republicans? God, how many ways will “the party of personal responsibility” come up with was to say “it wasn’t our fault”?
Whooo! Go Sean!
QiaB: Whooo! Go Sean!
Shhh. Don’t tell CSS.
LOL,
Sean, every once in a while you rise above the rest of the folks here but then you dive back into the mud. The administrative branch proposes yet it is the legislature branch that crafts the actual numbers which are submitted to the president for his approval or veto. They alone are responsible for the content. But then you already knew that, right?
Your post doesn’t contradict anything but by design or fault it doesn’t even come close to providing the picture you think it does.
“Republicans serve best as disruptors because they make a mess of things when they are in a position to pursue their policies? Republicans can’t be counted on to actually DO anything, just to STOP things? And when the Republicans are in charge they aren’t really Republicans? God, how many ways will “the party of personal responsibility” come up with was to say “it wasn’t our fault”?”
Indeed, I don’t know how to break this to you but politicians generally make things worse not better. They meddle where they don’t belong and try to micromanage things they don’t understand. Lying is their stock in trade and evading responsibility for their actions is standard operating procedure. Do anything for a vote today and damn the consequences, it will be somebody elses’s problem. Sadly this applies to both sides of the aisle. Republicans do their best work keeping Democrats in check.
Power tends to corrupt, do you remember how the last half of that goes? As government expands your personal freedom and liberty diminishes. Since you pride yourself on your deft abilities looking things up online, check out Winston Churchill’s alleged thoughts on liberals and brains. Whether he said it or not it is an apt observation.
Wow, AO makes a bunch of lazy, wrong, and just plain unsubstantiated partisan statements, and when called on them, just tries to generalize his way out of them. What a waste of time.
I think Amused Observer fancies himself a modern-day Churchill.
And in some ways he is: he’s a racist, imperialist, social-Darwinist prick who lives in the 19th Century in his mind, but without the talent for writing that Churchill had.
Bless his heart.
LOL,
Attacking the messenger again. If only you guys had paid a little more attention in school, specifically civics, economics, and history. I gave Sean props for actually using real data but pointed out that only Congress is responsible for actual legislation. But that’s a lazy 19th century imperialistic racist viewpoint.
Restating the same wrong things don’t make them right. You are making a flaw in the message into a flaw of the messenger.
The president is involved in the legislative process for the budget. He starts the process by collecting much of the data and then telling congress what the various departments want and need. The president also is involved in the legislation process, as he is with all legislation, with the nearly final right of veto. So unless congress can muster enough support for an override, the president can always flush what congress does down the toilet and make them start over.
Example: Newt Gingrich and Republicans attempt to shut down the government. Examine and explain how President Clinton was not involved in the budget process. Good luck.
Exactly, but involvement is not the same as responsibility. The president asks, Congress runs it through the sausage machine and submits it the prez for an up or down vote. Congress is responsible for the content.
Gingrich was outmaneuvered politically but that does not detract from the fact that Congress and Congress alone is responsible for the legislation it crafts. But you always knew that.
Most of Clintons alleged fiscal responsibility was forced upon him by Republicans. Remember “The end of big government as we know it”? Or welfare reform, neither was part of Clinton’s original gameplan but rather his method of triangulation.
Except for pussy Clinton had no personal convictions and certainly no honor, he just bent in what ever direction a focus group told him the winds were blowing.
QiaB: “Whooo! Go Sean!”
”
Sean: “Shhh. Don’t tell CSS.
Don’t worry, I know when it comes to debating, you save your lies for me.
It’s psychological, as the Per 100,000 debate showed.
Simple point:
You original claim was this:
“it is the legislative branch that creates budgets”
After getting spanked over that, you decided that means responsibility.
But, with the president’s veto power that responsibility is ultimately shared as the legislative and executive branches have to work together to find a budget acceptable to both. It’s called ‘checks and balances’.
Also, since the budget starts with the president and the facts and figures put together by the OMB, you can’t claim congress is solely responsible for the content.
Fafaroo, I’ll see your $10 and raise you a grand. Another wager I’d make is you and the majority of the liberal commentators here have never ran a business, never had to sweat payroll, insurance, ridiculous government intervention or any of the other challenges to running your own show, as I have for 20 years.
Right. The vast experience and knowledge you have in running your own business has been on ample display in your comments here, especially when you cited a completely misleading measure of the labor costs for US auto companies. Only an experienced, self reliant business person would count benefit costs twice when determining their labor costs.
Fafaroo,
You may personally disagree with the idea of unpaid labor costs from the past being part of labor costs of the present. That the cost of labor both past and present that Detroit pays right now for cars produced today is not competitive is surely beyond debate.
So how do you make a living Fafaroo? Do you work in the private sector creating wealth or do you work in the public sector subsisting on the wealth others create? I’m damn sure you don’t have what it takes to be self employed.
Midderpidge,
Congress creates the actual budget, they consider the presidents proposal and then allocate the actual sums of money in the manner and fashion they deem appropriate.
Since Congress creates the actual budget they are responsible for it. I know it is a hard concept for liberals to follow but if you do something you are responsible for that action.
Sadly while great at allocating money Congress is not so forth rite in actually funding budgets. Budgets have to be funded through taxation. Ever heard of the Ways and Means committee? How about the scandal ridden corrupt current chairman? He’s in charge of figuring out how to tax his fellow citizens but doesn’t bother to pay his taxes himself.
Taxation is the confiscation of wealth created by citizens. It is, at the end of the day, the sole means our government has for raising money not counting windfall sales of public property. That is basically why we can’t all have cushy public sector jobs subsisting off the confiscated wealth of others. Sort of an economic version of the laws of thermodynamics, there just ain’t no free lunch out there.
The administrative branch proposes yet it is the legislature branch that crafts the actual numbers which are submitted to the president for his approval or veto. They alone are responsible for the content.
Hey, mister “don’t-you-remember-high-school-civics”! How many sources do you need before you realize you’re wrong about this? The President crafts the budget (“Well, it sure looks like a budget! It’s got numbers in it!”)
Going back to high school civics, it is the legislative branch that creates budgets.
The statement is directly and unequivocally wrong, AO.
You may personally disagree with the idea of unpaid labor costs from the past being part of labor costs of the present.”
I really don’t think it has anything to do with my personal preferences. If you are going to include, as you put it, “unpaid labor costs of the past” as part of current labor costs, you can’t also include the unpaid labor costs of the present in your calculations for current labor costs, as well. It doesn’t make any sense, unless you are trying to deliberately inflate your labor cost estimates.
Do you run your business that way?
The GOP solution appears to be to have the U.S. Senate step in and renogotiate the contract already accepted by the employers and the unions.
So much for “small” government.
Amused 0: I gave Sean props for actually using real data but pointed out that only Congress is responsible for actual legislation.
Which is not the point you originally claimed to be making (“it is the legislative branch that creates budgets. The president merely signs off or not.”) which I and several others here have shown you were just flat out arong about.
But, like a good little right-winger, you’ve moved the goal posts and claim your point hasn’t been disproven because the point you were acually making was something entirely different than what you actually said.
CSS: It’s psychological, as the Per 100,000 debate showed.
I think your complete inability to just let it go shows far more.
Good work, Sean.
To summarize, Sean has demonstrated (using you know, evidence) that government growth over the last 30 years or so has been greater under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones.
AO’s counter arguments have collapsed under the mildest scrutiny.
Now, AO, if you want your point that the legislative branch (and by extentsion, Democrats) are responsible for the growth of government under Republican presidents, you really should offer something other than “The best that can be said is that it probably would grow more under a Democratic administration…”
“Because I said so,” might pass for logic at your house, but it comes up a bit short here.
“I think your complete inability to just let it go shows far more.”
And again, you fail to address the issue.
Why should I let it go? Seriously? It’s clear evidence of my claim, that you want to start fights with me and will ignore all facts to do so.
What happened, and the fact that you seem scared to even address what happened, is important when judging your credibility on other matters.
I will bring it up again and again till you give me a straightforward answer.
Damn, you guys can’t seem to grasp the simple fact that the president is in effect only making a suggestion of what his preferred budget would be. Other than persuasion he has no power to shape the budget or pick the numbers. Sometimes he can count on sufficient numbers of votes to get most of what he wants, sometimes he can’t. But Congress gets to choose what things are funded and how much money they get.
CS. what the hell are you talking about?
Quaker, Do you still think the president gets to decide what the budget will be?
Yes, blame us for your total misunderstanding of Gov’t 101.
AO: “CS. what the hell are you talking about?”
It’s an old debate between me and Sean. Basically what happened was…
Spider: We need to know deaths per gun, not per person for a fair comparison.
Jay: That’s what the per 100,000 is for.
Me: Huh? That doesn’t make sense.
Sean: Yes it does, quit stalling and answer his question.
Me: No it doesn’t make sense. We asked for per guns not per person and he just repeated the per person number.
Jay: I misread Spider’s post.
Me: How? What did you think he said?
Jay:…
Sean: Yes it did make perfect sense.
Me: Huh? No it didn’t!
Sean: Yes it did.
Me: No it didn’t.
Sean: Something about hills and ramps.
This went on for much longer than it did.
Sean started a fight with me, and even when the person he was defended admitted that he was wrong and I was right, Sean continues to attack me.
With him, it’s psychological. He hates my style, and will attack me because of that, regardless of the facts at hand. In fact, he will lie about what I’ve said to do so.
I point this out, repeatedly, because it goes to credibility. Sean is simply not credible. Feel free to point that out the next time he disagrees with you.
CS.,
It matters not I suppose.
Oliver,
I don’t hold any of you responsible for my understanding of anything. It appears you are the one who doesn’t understand the basics of our form of government. Are you one of those still under the illusion that the President gets to decide what is funded and with how much money?
In other words: Once upon a time CSS and I had different interpretations as to what was said and neither of us seemed able to explain what we meant in a way that got thru to the other. I noted this at the time (the “something about hills vs ramps” he mentioned was an attempt to clarify to CSS that I thought we were talking past each other). CSS, as is his wont, ignored the idea that we might be having a prolonged miscommunication and would not be dissuaded from his typical course of believing anyone who seemed to disagree with him is a moron.
It’s an incident which he refuses to let go and he seems to enjoy pouncing on things I post as further evidence that anything I say is “simply not credible”. That the earlier messages I posted in just this thread, complete with facts, figures and sources/references noted, does absolutely nothing to change CSS’s view just goes to show how obsessive he is.
In other words, once long ago CSS and I disagreed on what was said/meant and had difficulty making our points in a way that was getting thru to the other. When it was suggested that we had some extended mis-communication going on CSS disregarded the idea. (That he can only dismiss my attempt at this as “something about hills and ramps” despite claiming to remember other parts of the exchange in detail shows how uninterested he is in anything someone says that would require him to reflect and contemplate.)
So now CSS seems to enjoy jumping on bits and pieces of what I post as some support for his view that whatever I say is “simply not credible” and an attack on him. That my earlier posts in just this one thread, full of facts and figures with sources/references cited, do nothing to dissuade him from this view just goes to show how obsessed he is.
Quaker, Do you still think the president gets to decide what the budget will be?
Indeed. I learned it in high school civics. Now do you have anything to support your fantasy about why Republican presidents grow the government so much or not?
I thought not.
AO:
whitehouse.gov:
Now what were you saying about high school civics?
Quaker,
All that you have described in your last post is part of the Executive branch’s proposal to Congress. It is a request, advice for what the President deems a wise course of action regarding the amount of money the nation spends on government affairs.
Now my patronizing little pacifist what do you suppose happens next? The Legislature debates and finally decides what will and what will not be funded and how much money is going to be spent. At this point we have the actual budget, the responsibility for the amount of money spent and the direction of such spending is the whole and total responsibility of Congress.
The president can accept or reject the budget that Congress submits to him for his approval. If rejected the whole thing starts all over again.
But surely you know all this. Why is it so hard for you guys to admit Congress alone is ultimately responsible for the legislation it produces. Is the concept of responsibility that foreign to liberals?
All that you have described in your last post is part of the Executive branch’s proposal to Congress. It is a request, advice for what the President deems a wise course of action regarding the amount of money the nation spends on government affairs.
And this process, on your planet, is not called “creating a budget”?
Good to know.
“In other words: Once upon a time CSS and I had different interpretations as to what was said and neither of us seemed able to explain what we meant in a way that got thru to the other.”
No, Sean, this is not a problem is different interpretations or miscommunications. You said something that was wrong, and you refused to admit it.
You still refuse to admit it.
JAY ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG AND I WAS RIGHT, YET YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT.
How can you not understand this simple point?
“(That he can only dismiss my attempt at this as “something about hills and ramps” despite claiming to remember other parts of the exchange in detail shows how uninterested he is in anything someone says that would require him to reflect and contemplate.)”
It was a story about you getting into a discussion with someone and you were describing the same thing. Only they were calling it a hill and you were calling it a ramp so you two thought you were discussing two different things.
I’m dismissing it, because it doesn’t apply here.
You stated my question wasn’t valid and was just stalling.
I stated it was was valid because what Jay said didn’t make sense so askign for clarification was valid.
JAY ADMITTED WHAT HE SAID DIDN’T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE HE HAD MISREAD THE POST HE WAS RESPONDING TO.
We are saying two different things, because we mean two different things. And the evidence is clear, I was right, you were wrong.
“So now CSS seems to enjoy jumping on bits and pieces of what I post as some support for his view that whatever I say is ’simply not credible’ and an attack on him.”
Yes, like when you selectively quote what I say to change the meaning.
“That my earlier posts in just this one thread, full of facts and figures with sources/references cited, do nothing to dissuade him from this view just goes to show how obsessed he is.”
And you lie about me again. I made note that you only seem to do this to me.
I think it’s because you don’t like my aggressive attitude. Like how I have no issue calling someone a “fucking ‘tard” when they say something stupid. After telling me that, and I responded with, ‘I don’t give a fuck.’ I believe you decided to take me down. Your early attempts were not successful, so you’ve resorted to less intellectually honest methods, like quoting out of context.
CSS: JAY ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG AND I WAS RIGHT, YET YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT.
Oh, CSS. Even if I agreed with you, why would I ever want to admit it when it’s so much more fun to watch you stomp your widdle feet?
CSS: I believe you decided to take me down.
I have no doubt that you believe that. You’d be wrong, of course, but that’s never stopped you from insisting you were right before.
“But surely you know all this. Why is it so hard for you guys to admit Congress alone is ultimately responsible for the legislation it produces. Is the concept of responsibility that foreign to liberals?”
Why are you acting like the President doesn’t have some measure of control over the members of congress, especially those in his own party?
If the buck doesn’t stop with the president, why both spending so much money electing one?
Fuck the rest of the elections. Just make sure you have 41 Senators.
This isn’t how it works in real life, so your argument is not valid.
Congress: here’s the budget. We changed medicare disbursements.
Clinton: no, do it over the way I want it.
Congress: but we’re responsible, and that’s the way we want it.
Clinton: I told you, fix it.
Congress: we’re solely responsible for the budget and we’re changing medicare disbursements and raising the premiums and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it so sign it.
Clinton: see this pen?
Congress: nice pen, now you can sign the budget.
Clinton: this is my veto pen, now fix that shit.
Congress: but, we do the budget.
Clinton: then you sign the damn thing and see if it gets enacted
Congress: but we worked so hard on this
Clinton: I’m sorry I wasn’t listening, I thought you guys had left to go fix that budget like I told you to.
So, AO no matter how much you say think congress is solely responsible for the budget, you have to admit the guy who can kill it if he doesn’t like it can exercise his own responsibility over the project.
OK, AO. Let’s try to take it one small step at a time.
Can you admit you were mistaken in your original post that “The president merely signs off or not” and that he actually plays a larger roll in making the budget?
Sean,
Responsibility is a hard concept for liberals to grasp. Can you admit that Congress and Congress alone decides on the level of funding for each specific item in the budget. The President asks, Congress decides.
Amused 0: Responsibility is a hard concept for liberals to grasp.
Says the person who simply cannot take responsibility for what s/he said and acknowledge that “The president merely signs off or not” is inaccurate. Far easier to keep with the “Look, over there” and “Yeah, but” deflections.
The President asks, Congress decides.
The President asks. Earlier you had it as, “The president merely signs off or not.” Is “asking” the same as “signing off” or “not signing off”?
Dude, you got it wrong and got snarky about it in the process. How embarrassing for you.
Quaker,
The larger point, the prez can only say yay or nay, he may only suggest numbers and priorities. The rest is all push and shove politicking. You may attempt to twist my words all you want, you can’t change reality.
Sean,
As above.
Twist your words? You mean by, you know, quoting them?
All I’m asking you is this: when the President “asks” for a particular level of spending (which you now admit is part of the President’s role in the budget process) and sends his request to the legislature, is that “signing off” or “not signing off”?
It’s gotta be one or the other, because according to you, that’s all the President can do.
As to your so-called “larger point,” have you yet found anyone willing to do your research for you so that you may rebut Sean’s analysis of government spending growth under Republican presidents?
Should be a snap to come up with evidence of those bad, bad legislators tacking on ginormous bucks to the President’s requests.
Amused 0: Sean,
As above.
AO, ditto.
And still waiting.
The president does not “merely sign off or not”. That’s ridiculous. That implies they give it to the president and regardless of what he does, the budget will be enacted. VETO.
It would be the same as saying the president has sole responsibility for appointing judges, ambassadors and certain departmental positions.
Amused Observer: Responsibility is a hard concept for liberals to grasp. Can you admit that Congress and Congress alone decides on the level of funding for each specific item in the budget. The President asks, Congress decides.”
And reality is a hard concept for you to grasp.
As I pointed out above, if you are right above a mere technicality, then there’s not point in winning the White House and it would be better for political parties to spend all there effort trying to win enough seats in congress. It’s a lot cheaper win fight for the swing CDs than it is to win the White House.