Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16715 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 06, 2008 6:03 am) Just received my update from SS in the mail. Official percentage for this year is 5.8%. So I get an additional $99 on my January deposit. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I am just hoping I live long enough to get back what I put in over 46 years. It is doubtful. When I reach 75 I will be looking for the interest on that $250,000 contributed by myself and my employers. THE 10% PENALTY FOR DIGGING INTO THE 401K WILL BE DONE AWAY WITH Didn't Obama or Biden suggest that in the campaign. Along with removing the tax deduction on 401Ks?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Dec 06, 2008 4:54 am) Didn't that mayor just take a taxpayer funded trip to Asia? This reeks of graff and corruption. We still have lots of work to do in getting labor friendly folks into office. The UAW supports labor friendly folks in office regardless of party.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 06, 2008 7:00 am) I would say over the last 2 years more anti labor folks have been elected to Congress and the Presidency. Spreading the wealth is not pro labor. It is pro non worker. Creating jobs is best done by the private sector. That is not always what the Unions and especially the UAW vote for. Your view of jobs is different than mine. Jobs are created to produce something at a profit. Many Unions like the UAW think that jobs are to keep people working whether they are making the company money or not. Add to that the Jobs Bank and you have a totally Un-American situation. Paying people not to work is "Warehousing Votes". |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 06, 2008 6:03 am) So my predictions aren't good enough? Did you also predict that we are officially in a recession? By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: December 1, 2008: 5:40 PM ET AMERICA'S MONEY CRISIS * Georgia bank shuttered by regulators * Job picture could get even worse * Consumer credit drops $3.6B in October * Bush: Protect taxpayers in auto bailout * Stocks rally despite jobs report NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy  Some analyst predicted an uneasy economy for 25 years. Perhaps you can hit the target? Regards, OW
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 06, 2008 6:57 am) Does that reflect the purchasing power that recient price increases have eroded? You can thank Jimmy Carter for social security COLA and not having to resort to eating dog food as prior entitlement folks claimed. Alpo or Purina? This is the very reason we need the UAW to champion the rights of past and present workers. http://www.boom2bust.com/2008/10/16/social-security-recipients-being-short-chang- ed/
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 06, 2008 7:53 am) Wrong. Social Security COLA was part of the 1972 Amendments to the Social Security Act. (In case you've forgotten, I worked for Social Security at one time.) Nixon was President at that time. (Carter wasn't sworn in until January 1977.) The 1st actual cost-of-living adjustment was paid out in 1974. As I recall, Congress enacted the '72 Amendments because it wanted to remove Social Security benefit increases from the legislative agenda & put the system on autopilot. Many felt at the time that Congress was spending too much time on this. Organized labor favored COLA, but wasn't a major factor in its becoming law. The argument over how best to measure the cost-of-living for benefit adjustment purposes has been going on since COLA was enacted. This is nothing new. What the writer in your linked article doesn't mention is that more generous benefit increases will lead inevitably to higher taxes on young workers. Remember that Social Security is nothing more than a device for transferring money between generations. If you want to give more to the older generation, you have to steal more from the younger generation. It's that simple. Personally, I'd prefer lower FICA taxes on younger workers, even if that means smaller increases for retirees. (Actually, I'd much rather see Social Security privatized. No authentic classical liberal likes a one-size-fits-all compulsory system.) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 06, 2008 7:43 am) First there is what economist call a time lag. All the while when the FED should have been increasing interest rates, they caved into political pressure and to lessen the effect of the housing boom, they lowered rates. For each percentage point of increase/decrease, we have that many more/less qualified buyers. Rather than fighting inflation they opted for lessening the housing mess. They kept housing prices up and sold more units, by lowering interest rates. Second there will be inflation. Just how bad is yet to be known. If its bad enough, those T Bills will be like investing in a Cadillac and being paid back with a Aveo. There will be a dumping of these T Bills and investors looking into something more stable. Unlike Weimar Republic of post-WWI Germany, where foreign debt was due in gold, we have a fiat currency which can pay you back in worthless paper. Worthless meaning that it buys less than it did prior to you lending it. Please don't mistake lower prices at the pump as anything but less demand worldwide, which has created excessive supplies. Then too if the price of a home increases ten fold and wages increase fifty fold you have gain nothing, but rather lost. Third there is going to be much more spending on public works and a host of other things by govt. This will make things worse in an economic sense, but much better in a social sense. My answer is that bottom fishing is five or more years away and this is not the same beast of past economic cycles. I wouldn't even consider investing until the war effort is over, as govt demand for the war effort in itself is fueling this economy to a large extent. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 06, 2008 7:53 am) My guess is you are part of a minuscule minority in this country. The UAW of all Unions may be the worst example of what happens when Unions have too much control over the companies. The overwhelming mood in Congress is the UAW needs to shed their featherbedding ways. That is coming from Democrats and Republicans. There are a lot of good Unions that have used constraint in negotiations. The UAW is not one of them. Why do you think the CAW split with the UAW. It was unethical practices if you care to recall. I would say that oil prices falling will make that 5.8% more than fair. Over all my cost of living has not gone up this year. I just did not drive as much during the high priced gas period. Stayed home and tended my garden. Helped the wife make jam and canned peaches. Have 5 gallons of Plum Brandy that is coming along VERY well. With proper planning you can recession proof your life. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jimbres (Dec 06, 2008 8:23 am) I'm not going to let these old folks down in their last days. So, I don't agree with your sixty second solution. Life expectancy, modern medicine, were not taken into account/factored and therefore we have a problem. The problem is that on average most folks exhaust their contributions within five years. So we need to bite the bullet and go from there. Besides the AARP is the second largest/powerful lobby and they will protect their members. Much like the UAW will protect the membership. Double digit inflation was the major driver in COLA. I refuse to let the Wall Street crowd to invest social security taxes. You need an people who aren't looking to churn and or profit from the system. In a short time period, a year or two, social security would be the largest investment on Wall Street and the commissions are what these good ole boys are eying. It would be taking care of the GOP's Wall Street buddies, and we have more than done that already. I in turn would like to take a crack at it in a not for profit foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 06, 2008 7:43 am) Hopefully the loans will assure the public and they will start buying again. We are looking at a foreclosed home to buy and fix up to rent and then improve substantially in about 3 years to sell. Will not buy it unless GM gets the loans though. I know a bunch of guys doing the same thing. They are bidding very low on foreclosed homes because no one is buying. If they start to sell the prices will go up as will normal homes that are for sale.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
