You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) 

United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) - READ ONLY

17502 messages,  Last post on Mar 07, 2010 at 8:31 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 486 of 1751 1 ... 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 ... 1751 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#4850 of 17502 Re: Response [spirit6100] by jimbres Nov 14, 2008 (11:30 am)
Replying to: spirit6100 (Nov 14, 2008 11:08 am) and i disagree with the banks and the $700 billion bailout.., if you are going after somebody why don't you go after them, they won't help me with my home loan of 3 years(for a 3 year old home) at 16%.., and this is 2 weeks ago.., and i am done here..!! now if they cannot help me with that.., then why does the big 3 not get a bailout.   Well, I'm opposed to all bailouts as a matter of principle, but I'm the token free market/free trade/pro-capitalism small government classical liberal here. In my view, it's not government's job to ride to the rescue of failing businesses, & taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this nonsense. Replies to this message: dtownfb (Nov 14, 2008 11:33 am) spirit6100 (Nov 14, 2008 11:46 am) gagrice (Nov 14, 2008 12:05 pm)
#4851 of 17502 Re: Response [jimbres] by dtownfb Nov 14, 2008 (11:33 am)
Replying to: jimbres (Nov 14, 2008 11:30 am) Well, I'm opposed to all bailouts as a matter of principle, but I'm the token free market/free trade/pro-capitalism small government classical liberal here. In my view, it's not government's job to ride to the rescue of failing businesses, & taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this nonsense   Don't assume you're the only one....token.
#4852 of 17502 Re: Response [jimbres] by spirit6100 Nov 14, 2008 (11:46 am)
Replying to: jimbres (Nov 14, 2008 11:30 am) well the main thing is that all of these are to be paid back wether these banks make enough profit to pay this $700 billion back is beyond me, but it is all suppose to be paid back, and if there is going to bailouts then why does the consumer not get bailed out at the same time.., the banks want more and more $ as a loan.., fine they have their $.., the consumer should also get a break based on a percentage of what is owed, and income or something..., i mean like c'mon, wake up.., if we can take an easy ticket out then why not as the economy is getting bad(if it is), then we can all benefit with some kind of break.., and while the banks get a big break with this bailout loan.., the consumers can easily get a few percentage points in their favor instead of standing in some unemployment line or waiting for some other stimulus thing of whatever, c'mon IF THE ECONOMY IS GOING DOWN the government more than likely will step in to guide somewhere and sometimes its alot of $$$$, of course i would not be in favor of just giving cash away in some out of order fashion, let there be some kind of order, i gotta go now, but i really think there could be some kind of easy way to break down this problem.., as the banks are getting their ways there could be a formula for the consumers here...,
#4853 of 17502 Re: Response [jimbres] by gagrice Nov 14, 2008 (12:05 pm)
Replying to: jimbres (Nov 14, 2008 11:30 am) Well, I'm opposed to all bailouts as a matter of principle, but I'm the token free market/free trade/pro-capitalism small government classical liberal here. In my view, it's not government's job to ride to the rescue of failing businesses, & taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this nonsense.   I would not consider myself a Libertarian. I did vote for the Libertarian Congressman in my district. And I do agree with all your points above. The sooner the market hits bottom the sooner it can recover. Hopefully in a more conservative fashion. We need to study what happened in the past to try and avoid the same pitfalls. The biggest item on my agenda would be getting back to responsible lending practices and getting rid of the ultra low interest rates. Loaning anyone money at near zero will increase risks. The borrower has nothing to lose but the other people's money.
#4854 of 17502 Re: gagrice... [kipk] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:01 pm)
Replying to: kipk (Nov 14, 2008 8:36 am) Not at all unusual for companies to use PT people during peek periods. Why should they go to the expense of hiring full time people, when they are not needed full time. A plus for the companies is that they have the opportunity to observe working habits of those PT people, so that when they actually need to hire a full time person, they can offer jobs to the best workers.   Most states have the 90 day probationary period. During this period the employee may be dismissed and no reason be given. That also works the other way, the employee may quit and give no reason. I suspect that temps are also judged on other factors. Age may well be one of these reasons. Many companies are self insured and predispositions to illness, older or less than healthy employees can be a liability to insurance claims. Smokers, obese/over weight, sexual orientation, or other afflictions may in fact be taken into consideration and laws to protect against this type of discrimination be gotten around. Replies to this message: steve_ (Nov 14, 2008 3:16 pm)
#4855 of 17502 Re: gagrice... [kipk] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:09 pm)
Replying to: kipk (Nov 14, 2008 8:36 am) >" The pendulum is swinging and not in a direction that will please strong Union people. Eight hours work for 8 hours pay will be expected or someone else will get the job. "   Sounds just like the same rational in the recent political change. The conservative extremes and abuses have given way to extreme radicalism in Washington. So it would be safe to assert that anti-unionism/UAW will be back after the failure of the free market system to provide content to a non-union workforce. Just as the all out deregulated laissez faire business environment failed to trickle down anything but a golden shower.
#4856 of 17502 Re: gagrice... [lemko] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:15 pm)
Replying to: lemko (Nov 14, 2008 9:09 am) Typical. The Soviet Union would have 50,000 workers at a typical Russian integrated steel mill whereas an American one would have 10,000. This was back in the heyday of Big Steel.   It may not be American who will suffer, we already did. Other than specialty steel, other nations have the lions share of this once American industry. However, China wants the industry/jobs. Once they are forced out of business by a less efficient steel producer, the consumer also pays. In perfect competition the efficient keep their jobs and the consumer wins with lower prices.
#4857 of 17502 Re: No bailout without addressing the UAW [fezo] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:18 pm)
Replying to: fezo (Nov 14, 2008 9:41 am) Cadillac CTS, with the Bose and navigation. TYTE RIDE
#4858 of 17502 Re: Irritating [gagrice] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:21 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 14, 2008 10:57 am) If you think our Liberal government will not steal your property. Google Riviera Beach Florida.   Jerry Jones new stadium, biggest and best, home of the Dallas Cowboys in 2009 used Eminent Domain to attain the property. So is this just a LIBERAL thing? Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 14, 2008 3:37 pm)
#4859 of 17502 Re: Response [spirit6100] by dallasdude1 Nov 14, 2008 (2:23 pm)
Replying to: spirit6100 (Nov 14, 2008 11:08 am) they won't help me with my home loan of 3 years(for a 3 year old home) at 16%   I read yesterday that they were helping those who were 3 months behind on their mortgage.

Messages Page 486 of 1751 1 ... 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 ... 1751 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)