Why Republicans really voted against the auto bail-out (polls, health care, weapons)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Morgan Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local representing General Motors workers in Shreveport, said Friday that Sen. David Vitter's role in blocking an auto bailout indicates "he's chosen to play Russian roulette" with Louisiana jobs and the national economy.
"I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him, " said Johnson, president of Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, "He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers."
Johnson's comments are a reference to the revelation last year that Vitter's name appeared in the phone records of a Washington prostitution ring.
no they are not. you think because you are long winded you are right.
No, I have to be long-winded because those facts that you aren't going to refute take up a lot of space when you go to write them all down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61
Ive done several mortgages and re-fis over the last 20 years and have seen 1st hand what a Loanoff/broker and an appraiser can cook up to get a loan done.
How many of these -- what, three experiences -- were CRA loans? What sort of things did you witness first-hand that you think would serve to call into question any of the points that I made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61
Claiming some altruistic BS about clinton extending credit to to rebuild neighborhoods is alot of bunk. He did it so he could make political points about home ownership among the poor and minorities
Like every other worker, politicians tend to point to their accomplishments when the time for a performance review rolls around. Are you meanwhile questioning the effects that CRA lending had in LMI neighborhoods and communities during the 1990's, or are you merely claiming that Clinton doesn't deserve any of the credit for them?
Both Management and Labor are at fault here. No question about it. However, the main reason for the bailout is to allow the workers to keep their jobs.
I agree that auto worker jobs is one of the reasons, but it's not the only or even the most important reason. The failure of one or more of the Big Three could have a very significant, negative impact on our already-hurting economy.
The Big Three automakers' troubles are wreaking havoc on state and local budgets far beyond the Rust Belt. And a collapse of even one of Detroit's car manufacturers would hit governments while they are down.
States and cities around the nation are already slashing budgets and services as the deepening economic downturn shrinks their coffers. To close their budget gaps, governments are cutting public health programs, reducing aid to public school and universities, and laying off workers.
Problems in the auto industry are only exacerbating this turmoil. Not only have nearly 800,000 people lost car-related jobs this year, accounting for 40% of the increase in unemployment, but auto sales are at a 26-year low and at least 660 dealerships have closed their doors.
This means state and local governments are collecting less in personal income taxes, corporate business taxes and sales taxes -- all critical to funding their operations. State tax revenue fell 2.6%, when adjusted for inflation, in the third quarter, according to preliminary figures from the Rockefeller Institute of Government.
That's what is happening now ... as for predictions of what could happen, well ....
Quote:
Any additional weakening of the auto industry would further reduce government revenues, while increasing the amount the public sector has to lay out for unemployment benefits, welfare and Medicaid, experts said.
A 50% reduction in the Big Three's domestic operations, for instance, would result in 2.5 million people losing their jobs, according to the Center for Automotive Research. That would drain $20.5 billion in personal income taxes at the federal, state and local levels in 2009, while forcing the public sector to spend an additional $11.9 billion in benefits.
Every state would feel the impact. Even if only GM, the most troubled of the automakers, shut down, 914,000 jobs would be lost nationwide, according to the Economic Policy Institute. This includes people who work in the plants, in auto suppliers and in businesses that support the industry, such as nearby restaurants and shops.
Do American auto manufacturers need to change the way they conduct business? Yes, and I would expect any money given to automakers to have reasonable conditions attached. But I think it's extremely important for these companies not to fail - not now. The economy is just too fragile right now to handle many more blows, and this would be a major, major blow.
I dont have time to "refute" arguments you plagerized from the ny times editorial page and mixed in a little of your sophmore legaleze to claim as your own
No, I have to be long-winded because those facts that you aren't going to refute take up a lot of space when you go to write them all down.
I have spent the last 20 years buying and selling rentals most of which were MSHDA/ rural development backed. It was more than a few but the point is you cant define what loans are CRA any better than government agencies who have to guess when trying to evaluate the program. I have no freakin clue how im supposed to know, neither do you. A good lawyer never asks a question he doesnt know the answer
How many of these -- what, three experiences -- were CRA loans? What sort of things did you witness first-hand that you think would serve to call into question any of the points that I made?
Not just Clinton, Reagan, Bush, billy and dubya all took credit for getting minorities and working poor into housing. The problem is that forcing Banks to make risky loans under threat of Federal punishment creates an environment ripe for corruption by Banks and their consumers. Im sure the intent wasnt to bring our economy to its knees but that is what happened
Like every other worker, politicians tend to point to their accomplishments when the time for a performance review rolls around. Are you meanwhile questioning the effects that CRA lending had in LMI neighborhoods and communities during the 1990's, or are you merely claiming that Clinton doesn't deserve any of the credit for them?
I dont have time to "refute" arguments you plagerized from the ny times editorial page and mixed in a little of your sophmore legaleze to claim as your own
The predicted non-refutation arrives. Meanwhile, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with these editorials you refer to. Perhaps you could provide some links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61
I have spent the last 20 years buying and selling rentals most of which were MSHDA/ rural development backed. It was more than a few but the point is you cant define what loans are CRA any better than government agencies who have to guess when trying to evaluate the program. I have no freakin clue how im supposed to know, neither do you. A good lawyer never asks a question he doesnt know the answer.
MSDHA is a state program that has nothing to do with CRA. While CRA reports for a given institution are prepared in context, CRA lending is that which meets well-defined standards. Perhaps you should wend your way through this little presentation prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of SF. It's sort of a CRA for Dummies. You might find it useful. Maybe some other folks as well.
Not just Clinton, Reagan, Bush, billy and dubya all took credit for getting minorities and working poor into housing. The problem is that forcing Banks to make risky loans under threat of Federal punishment creates an environment ripe for corruption by Banks and their consumers. Im sure the intent wasnt to bring our economy to its knees but that is what happened
The economy may have been brought approximately to its knees, but CRA played no signficant role in that at all. This was the work of wild-eyed cowboy capitalists out to ride that unregulated free-market bull all the way to the promised land. Too bad they all fell off in the end and took the rest of us with them. Here's a take on all that which, by the way, is not from the NY Times...
I don't really consider a LOAN to be a bailout nor auto workers' jobs necessarily the primary reason.
Anytime the gov't gives the private sector something they could not get in the marketplace, its a bailout.
Quote:
I don't believe the US can afford to lose its manufacturing capability and no matter how many plants Toyota, Honda, BMW, et al build in the states the profits eventually leave the US, better we learn how to keep those $$$ here.
The U.S. can not afford to incentivize poor business practices in order to keep jobs ARTIFICIALLY. This will be more of a long term detriment to the economy then loosing some of the jobs now. Remember Ch. 11 means restructuring, not dissapearing. Jobs will be reduced, but we need to go through this pain to emerge stronger and more efficient. This forces innovation, new industries, more jobs. No incentive to innovate means a steady loss of jobs and an uncompetitive U.S. economy.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
Anytime the gov't gives the private sector something they could not get in the marketplace, its a bailout.
More regulation is a bailout?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
The U.S. can not afford to incentivize poor business practices in order to keep jobs ARTIFICIALLY. This will be more of a long term detriment to the economy then loosing some of the jobs now. Remember Ch. 11 means restructuring, not dissapearing. Jobs will be reduced, but we need to go through this pain to emerge stronger and more efficient. This forces innovation, new industries, more jobs. No incentive to innovate means a steady loss of jobs and an uncompetitive U.S. economy.
It's been done with agriculture for years, why is manufacturing any different?
Sure food's important but I would remind you that without the auto industry's facilities WW II very possibly would have had a different result.
Giving them low interest loans that THEY CAN'T get otherwise is a bailout.
Quote:
It's been done with agriculture for years, why is manufacturing any different?
Sure food's important but I would remind you that without the auto industry's facilities WW II very possibly would have had a different result.
And its wrong to artificailly subsidize agriculture. Remember, nobody is saying the auto companies should totally go away, they should restructure and down size. We still have lots of manufacturing here. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyndai, Mercedes, BMW, Boeing, etc. Use their plants to make weapons if need be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uhhhh...can you say "SMACK DOWN".
