The Congressional Pickle

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

As you may recall during the election campaign I pointed out the absurdity of Sen. Obama repeatedly saying he was not taking money from lobbying groups and would cut their influence during his administration. I also noted that influencing the President was not the real issue in any case, but rather the correct target was Congress.

Let’s take a look at the major supporters of the Democrats in money and power, the UAW, trail lawyers, the AFL-CIO and environmental groups. Now the Democratic Congress has to figure out how to keep them all happy while not making it too obvious that the average American or as they like to say, middle class working American is getting the short end of the stick.

Does anyone really think that the rush to save the auto industry is motivated by anything other than pay back for the UAW? The $25 billion already allocated to the Big 3 is supposed to be for “green cars. How does that help them survive? And if the money is not used for that purpose, the Democrats will have explaining to do to the environmentalists. What a pickle.

Now Congress is rushing to send more money to the failing auto industry or more accurately the failing three American manufacturers. How is it that virtually every other car maker in the world can make money (excluding the current economic crisis) and what was once the largest of the group is falling on its face? Pelosi and the gang easily focus on controlling executive pay in return for a government handout, but readily ignore the failed business model when throwing money at GM, Ford and Chrysler. That’s your money by the way. :yh_rotfl

There is one sure prescription for failure in the future, that is allowing Congress to micromanage American business¦but I guess it’s a little late to worry about that. :rolleyes:

[wildhorses]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1058266 wrote: As you may recall during the election campaign I pointed out the absurdity of Sen. Obama repeatedly saying he was not taking money from lobbying groups and would cut their influence during his administration. I also noted that influencing the President was not the real issue in any case, but rather the correct target was Congress.

Let’s take a look at the major supporters of the Democrats in money and power, the UAW, trail lawyers, the AFL-CIO and environmental groups. Now the Democratic Congress has to figure out how to keep them all happy while not making it too obvious that the average American or as they like to say, middle class working American is getting the short end of the stick.

Does anyone really think that the rush to save the auto industry is motivated by anything other than pay back for the UAW? The $25 billion already allocated to the Big 3 is supposed to be for “green cars. How does that help them survive? And if the money is not used for that purpose, the Democrats will have explaining to do to the environmentalists. What a pickle.

Now Congress is rushing to send more money to the failing auto industry or more accurately the failing three American manufacturers. How is it that virtually every other car maker in the world can make money (excluding the current economic crisis) and what was once the largest of the group is falling on its face? Pelosi and the gang easily focus on controlling executive pay in return for a government handout, but readily ignore the failed business model when throwing money at GM, Ford and Chrysler. That’s your money by the way. :yh_rotfl

There is one sure prescription for failure in the future, that is allowing Congress to micromanage American business¦but I guess it’s a little late to worry about that. :rolleyes:


Let those dumb ass car companies fail. Congress should use that 25 billion to hire the ex-car company employees to fix roads and bridges. Pay them good and they will spend money into the economy. They will pay tax also. If they are paid too low then there is not any indirect benefit from the expenditure. But there would still be a direct benefit in that these people would remain employed. If that money is given to the car companies they will just absorb it and then ask for more.....because, Quinn, you are right.....they are a failed company.

[Accountable]

wildhorses;1058309 wrote: Let those dumb ass car companies fail. Congress should use that 25 billion to hire the ex-car company employees to fix roads and bridges. Pay them good and they will spend money into the economy. They will pay tax also. If they are paid too low then there is not any indirect benefit from the expenditure. But there would still be a direct benefit in that these people would remain employed. If that money is given to the car companies they will just absorb it and then ask for more.....because, Quinn, you are right.....they are a failed company.
Hire them directly, or give road companies enough contractual business to justify hiring them?

[wildhorses]

Accountable;1058825 wrote: Hire them directly, or give road companies enough contractual business to justify hiring them?


I think hiring them directly would maximize the benefit of spending the money. No middle man. But giving road companies contracts would also work. Its just that the road company then gets part of the money. I think if the hiring was direct that more jobs could be created with the same amount of money. That is more money that would come back in taxes from employees, and more money that could be spent into the economy by the workers. Also the hourly rate could be more. If the hourly rate is too low then the workers could fall into the low or no income tax bracket. And also too low of a wage would provide little or no disposable income to spend into the economy. I would go so far as to say that all states should think about doing something like this. People are going to become unemployed. The states are going to have to spend money for services. Instead of just handing out money, they could use the money to employ people...thereby stimulating the economy. This will indirectly create other unrelated jobs because these employees would have money to spend. The way the money is spent can make the difference between just tossing the money to the wind, or stimulating growth.

[Accountable]

wildhorses;1059295 wrote: I think hiring them directly would maximize the benefit of spending the money. No middle man. But giving road companies contracts would also work. Its just that the road company then gets part of the money. I think if the hiring was direct that more jobs could be created with the same amount of money. That is more money that would come back in taxes from employees, and more money that could be spent into the economy by the workers. Also the hourly rate could be more. If the hourly rate is too low then the workers could fall into the low or no income tax bracket. And also too low of a wage would provide little or no disposable income to spend into the economy. I would go so far as to say that all states should think about doing something like this. People are going to become unemployed. The states are going to have to spend money for services. Instead of just handing out money, they could use the money to employ people...thereby stimulating the economy. This will indirectly create other unrelated jobs because these employees would have money to spend. The way the money is spent can make the difference between just tossing the money to the wind, or stimulating growth.
If the gov't created a construction company - ignoring the public outrage for just a sec ... and the probability that the UAW would fight it as demeaning to make highly-skilled assembly line workers do manual labor - far fewer jobs would be created.


Creating a company means not only hiring the workforce, it also means finding and hiring people to run the business ... within the confines and with all the paperwork of a federal bureaucracy.

Don't forget the millions upon millions it would take to purchase equipment.

That equipment has to be maintained, as well. The newly-minted mechanics would have need shops for them to work in, with all the required equipment and tools.

Also, we're talking about work being done all over the country.


Would the gov't pay to relocate these Detroit auto workers and their families to each new area as the old project is finished? Would we make the old Motown worker the new Migrant worker?

What did the gov't do with all those people it employed for the New Deal deals, once the Deal was done?

[wildhorses]

Accountable;1059504 wrote: If the gov't created a construction company - ignoring the public outrage for just a sec ... and the probability that the UAW would fight it as demeaning to make highly-skilled assembly line workers do manual labor - far fewer jobs would be created.


Creating a company means not only hiring the workforce, it also means finding and hiring people to run the business ... within the confines and with all the paperwork of a federal bureaucracy.

Don't forget the millions upon millions it would take to purchase equipment.

That equipment has to be maintained, as well. The newly-minted mechanics would have need shops for them to work in, with all the required equipment and tools.

Also, we're talking about work being done all over the country.


Would the gov't pay to relocate these Detroit auto workers and their families to each new area as the old project is finished? Would we make the old Motown worker the new Migrant worker?

What did the gov't do with all those people it employed for the New Deal deals, once the Deal was done?




The auto workers can take it or leave it. If they dont want it, then it can be offered to other unemployed workers. And the management structure is already in place for road work. States have road work crews already....they just need to expand that. Equipment they have most of....maybe they need a few more.

The auto companies are going to go down, so if the unemployed auto workers want the road work, they can have it. If they dont...OK. Times are tough and jobs are scarce. And I would not transport the workers around to each project in each state. I would hire within each state. The projects would last long enough in each state to keep em going for awhile. In other words I am taking a broader view than just the auto workers. I am talking about putting people to work on the infrastructure. Some of those jobs can go to auto workers if they choose to take them.

We should not be bailing out the auto companies. Much of the problem has to do with contracts. The companies were at the table and did sign those contracts. They should have been more careful what they signed. Let em go down.

I know this will radiate to job loss outside the industry. But if infrastrcture jobs were created, then that would feed the economy and would feed supporting businesses. There would still be money flow in the area so retail would still stay afloat.

[Accountable]

wildhorses;1060096 wrote: The auto workers can take it or leave it. If they dont want it, then it can be offered to other unemployed workers. And the management structure is already in place for road work. States have road work crews already....they just need to expand that. Equipment they have most of....maybe they need a few more.



The auto companies are going to go down, so if the unemployed auto workers want the road work, they can have it. If they dont...OK. Times are tough and jobs are scarce. And I would not transport the workers around to each project in each state. I would hire within each state. The projects would last long enough in each state to keep em going for awhile. In other words I am taking a broader view than just the auto workers. I am talking about putting people to work on the infrastructure. Some of those jobs can go to auto workers if they choose to take them.



We should not be bailing out the auto companies. Much of the problem has to do with contracts. The companies were at the table and did sign those contracts. They should have been more careful what they signed. Let em go down.



I know this will radiate to job loss outside the industry. But if infrastrcture jobs were created, then that would feed the economy and would feed supporting businesses. There would still be money flow in the area so retail would still stay afloat.
Except for my preferring contracts, I agree. :-2



Okay, who are you and what have you done with the union-mad real Wildhorses??

[wildhorses]

Accountable;1060103 wrote: Except for my preferring contracts, I agree. :-2



Okay, who are you and what have you done with the union-mad real Wildhorses??
Contract would be OK. It would still provide much needed jobs and would radiate out to create and strengthen employment. It would still feed the economy if the pay was high enough. And all important tax dollars too. But we are in a very precarious situation economically. I figure that right now direct would be better because it would get more dollars circulating directly into the economy. And right now every single dollar counts. But still ....contracts would also work.

LOL....I am still a union supporter. But management has to stand up for themselves in negotiations. If they dont the union will make mince meat of the company. Many will blame union negotiators when the contract ends up being "union heavy". But ...really that is the fault of company negotiators for not holding their ground.

I am pro worker (as you may have noticed).....and union heavy contracts are not in the best interest of the worker in the long run. Oh sure...they get more for a minute, but then they lose everything. Contracts should be fair and sustainable to both the worker and the company. What good is it to win a pension pack if the company goes under? What good is a great hourly wage if it is just for a year....and not the year after? The other side of the coin....CEO's should not be buiding ten mansions while workers cant pay a mortgage. Workers should feel that their job is stable so they can make long term plans with regard to their finances. So they can build something over time for all their hard work. If a contract is unbalanced this robs the worker of this stability. Companies should be able to depend on their workers to do quality work and to be reliable. Ideally companies should not have to keep training new workers.

If the company becomes "top heavy" where the management siphons off too much money ....or...."union heavy" where the workers are doing the siphoning, then the whole arrnagement is doomed to fail. No one can depend on the company...not the employees or the company itself.