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.
As a card carrying teamster and career machinist I always took the UAWs greed personal. I gauarantee I out produced any line worker in Lansing for less than half the pay and a weak benefit package if at all.
As a card carrying teamster and career machinist I always took the UAWs greed personal. I gauarantee I out produced any line worker in Lansing for less than half the pay and a weak benefit package if at all.
They should bust that union down at the knees
You talk like a blue collar sonderkommando. And like you think you're the only guy who ever hit a lick.
So explain how breaking the UAW down builds you up.
As a card carrying teamster and career machinist I always took the UAWs greed personal. I gauarantee I out produced any line worker in Lansing for less than half the pay and a weak benefit package if at all.
They should bust that union down at the knees
Maybe the union leaders need to be replaced if there is a problem with them, or maybe the unions need to be reorganized but to want to get rid of unions would mean giving the greedy corporatists excactly what they want. They will not have to outsource American jobs because they will have slave labor right here in the good old USA. Do you realize that it would take the country right back to the unfair labor practices of days gone by if unions were to be obliterated?
Hope I'm not jumping to conclusions here or passing judgment before I get my head fully pulled out but as I understand it...
Quote:
10 Republican Senators voted with the Democrats last night
Four Democrats voted 'nay': Baucus, Tester, Lincoln, and Reid
Four Democrats did not vote: Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wyden
But as Speaker Pelosi says....
Quote:
Senate Republicans’ refusal to support the bipartisan legislation passed by the House and negotiated in good faith with the White House, the Senate and the automakers is irresponsible, especially at a time of economic hardship. The consequences of the Senate Republicans’ failure to act could be devastating to our economy, detrimental to workers, and destructive to the American automobile industry.
Quote:
...the Democrats could have reached 60 votes if the entire Democratic caucus voted for the bill.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,287 posts, read 54,108,627 times
Reputation: 40586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
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 don't really consider a LOAN to be a bailout nor auto workers' jobs necessarily the primary reason.
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.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The Republicans, as I've said before, have nothing to do with this credit crisis. It was caused primarily by the sub-prime mortgage business, which began with the creation of the CRA (thanks to the Carter administration) which forced banks to make loans to low income people with little or no money down, no verification of income, and no verification that they had the means to pay them off.
Pay some attention. CRA did away with red-lining -- the practice of refusing to lend into neighborhoods and communities that you take deposits from simply based on address. Clinton said it wasn't enough not to get caught red-lining...that covered banks had an affirmative responsibility to lend and if they didn't, they couldn't count on federal favor when applying for the next acquisition or merger. So who did these CRA loans go to? You think that low- and moderate-income communities are made up of a bunch of welfare and unemployed deadbeats who use all their benefits to buy booze and lay around drunk in the streets all day. Actually, these are people who work hard, often at more than one low-paying job, and have higher personal savings rates than you do. And they already had mortgages. Only they were at pay-day loan type organizations at rates up to double prevailing conventional rates. When CRA financing became available to these people, they suddenly had MORE money available each month. They could afford a new car, to put in some new landscaping, or to give the house a new coat of paint. Unbeknownst to you, CRA loans issued by CRA-covered banks and S&L's performed BETTER than industry averages throughout the 1990's. Property values in covered communities began to increase, outside investments in community infrastructure started to flow in. CRA was both good business and good social policy, but you believe differently because you're willing to swallow the latest right-wing manufactured swill (in this case, manufactured by Lincoln-hater Thomas DiLorenzo) that says differently. Go do your homework before you start making claims over who knows what they are talking about. That way you'd learn that CRA lending essentially came to an end in 2001 because Bushie chose not to enforce an affirmative responsibility under CRA. He thought it would be better if low- and moderate-income communities were left in the hands of unregulated private brokers and bank affiliates who proceeded to write all the high-cost paper they could into these and other communities so that the boys back at the investment banks could make a fortune by slicing and dicing that paper into every form of exotic derivative you could imagine withour fear of any regulation or oversight at all. That's where this crisis came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
In order for the banks to get these bad loans off their balance sheets, they were allowed to bundle them and sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If you understood the relevant finance, you'd know that this is how lenders are recapitalized. When you issue a 30-year loan, you don't sit around for 30 years waiting to get your money back. You bundle a bunch of those loans up and sell a single fixed payment stream based on the combined mortgage payments into the secondary markets to mutual funds, pension funds, university endowments, and others who have cash they are looking to invest. The cash proceeds of those sales flow back to the lender who can then afford to lend again. Fannie and Freddie are simply two large middlemen in that process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
When Republicans tried to hold hearings on the impending crisis, the Democrats sneered, and claimed that they didn't see any looming crisis, and accused the Republicans of trying to create a crisis where none existed, for political gain.
Duped again! The YouTube video that you base this claim on is actually carefully edited footage from an inquiry into whether Fannie and Freddie had complied with generally accepted accounting principles in preparing their various annual reports. It had nothing to do with operations or with any impending crisis at all. But the tape is carefully spliced to conceal the actual purpose of the hearings, letting its producers imply via their cleverly interjected whiteboard messages that something else is going on from what actually is. And you fell for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Further, Republicans are blamed for contributing to this by the deregulation of banks, but this took place during the Clinton administration, as part of his Plan for the 21st Century Economy. Example: Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law Clinton signed repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had strictly separated traditional commercial banking from investment banking. The Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 90-8, with many Democrats voting for the final bill including Obama running mate Joe Biden.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake, and some people said so at the time. It's true that the existing law left US financial institutions at a competitive disadvatage in expanding global markets, but outright repeal was the wrong answer to that problem. We were meanwhile immediately treated as the result of repeal to the rigged IPO scandals, but that was hardly enough to convince Phil Gramm types to turn back the clock, and once Bush was appointed, any sense of correcting the error simply went sailing out the window. The repeal was a long-standing Republican initiative that they finally found a way to get some Democrats on board for, and it was all Republicans who ignored the mounting evidence that they had taken us once again down the wrong path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Other forms of deregulation of banks also under Clinton allowed banks to raise interest rates to obscene levels (30% or more) on credit card debt, which has driven many into bankruptcy, no longer able to pay even the monthly minimum payments (as interest increased, so also the minimum payments). This has spurred the Senate to hold hearings on the practices of credit card companies, but to date, nothing has been done to change these policies.
State caps on usury were not undone by Clinton, but by the US Supreme Court in Marquette National Bank v. First Omaha Services Corporation. That case was decided in 1978. Maybe you missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Those are the facts. These facts have been widely reported all over the Internet and elsewhere (special televised report as well). Why people like you refuse to accept that it is the Democrats who are wholly responsible for this shows your extreme bias, and willingness to perpetuate a lie and disseminate propaganda. But, that's what we have come to expect from the left, which is why nothing that comes from the left can be trusted. It's all suspect.
None of those are actually the facts. They are junk-memes pumped out by the right-wing disinformation media in order to influence the painfully gullible. This apparently includes you.
Last edited by saganista; 12-13-2008 at 02:40 PM..
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,039,437 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Pay some attention. CRA did away wirh red-lining -- the practice of refusing to lend into neighborhoods and communities that you take deposits from simply based on address. Clinton said it wasn't enough not to get caught red-lining...that covered banks had an affirmative responsibility to lend and if they didn't, they couldn't count on federal favor when applying for the next acquisition or merger. So who did these CRA loans go to? You think that low- and moderate-income communities are made up of a bunch of welfare and unemployed deadbeats who use all their benefits to buy booze and lay around drunk in the streets all day. Actually, these are people who work hard, often at more than one low-paying job, and have higher personal savings rates than you do. And they already had mortgages. Only they were at pay-day loan type organizations at rates up to double prevailing conventional rates. When CRA financing became available to these people, they suddenly had MORE money available each month. They could afford a new car, to put in some new landscaping, or to give the house a new coat of paint. Unbeknownst to you, CRA loans issued by CRA-covered banks and S&L's performed BETTER than industry averages throughout the 1990's. Property values in covered communities began to increase, outside investments in community infrastructure started to flow in. CRA was both good business and good social policy, but you believe differently because you're willing to swallow the latest right-wing manufactured swill (in this case, manufactured by Lincoln-hater Thomas DiLorenzo) that says differently. Go do your homework before you start making claims over who knows what they are talking about. That way you'd learn that CRA lending essentially came to an end in 2001 because Bushie chose not to enforce an affirmative responsibility under CRA. He thought it would be better if low- and moderate-income communities were left in the hands of unregulated private brokers and bank affiliates who proceeded to write all the high-cost paper they could into these and other communities so that the boys back at the investment banks could make a fortune by slicing and dicing that paper into every form of exotic derivative you could imagine withour fear of any regulation or oversight at all. That's where this crisis came from.
If you understood the relevant finance, you'd know that this is how lenders are recapitalized. When you issue a 30-year loan, you don't sit around for 30 years waiting to get your money back. You bundle a bunch of those loans up and sell a single fixed payment stream based on the combined mortgage payments into the secondary markets to mutual funds, pension funds, university endowments, and others who have cash they are looking to invest. The cash proceeds of those sales flow back to the lender who can then afford to lend again. Fannie and Freddie are simply two large middlemen in that process.
Duped again! The YouTube video that you base this claim on is actually carefully edited footage from an inquiry into whether Fannie and Freddie had complied with generally accepted accounting principles in preparing their various annual reports. It had nothing to do with operations or with any impending crisis at all. But the tape is carefully spliced to conceal the actual purpose of the hearings, letting its producers imply via their cleverly interjected whiteboard messages that something else is going on from what actually is. And you fell for it.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake, and some people said so at the time. It's true that the existing law left US financial institutions at a competitive disadvatage in expanding global markets, but outright repeal was the wrong answer to that problem. We were meanwhile immediately treated as the result of repeal to the rigged IPO scandals, but that was hardly enough to convince Phil Gramm types to turn back the clock, and once Bush was appointed, any sense of correcting the error simply went sailing out the window. The repeal was a long-standing Republican initiative that they finally found a way to get some Democrats on board for, and it was all Republicans who ignored the mounting evidence that they had taken us once again down the wrong path.
State caps on usury were not undone by Clinton, but by the US Supreme Court in Marquette National Bank v. First Omaha Services Corporation. That case was decided in 1978. Maybe you missed it.
None of those are actually the facts. They are junk-memes pumped out by the right-wing disinformation media in order to influence the painfully gullible. This apparently includes you.
Uhhhh...can you say "SMACK DOWN". Informative post.
no they are not. you think because you are long winded you are right.
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. 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
None of those are actually the facts. They are junk-memes pumped out by the right-wing disinformation media in order to influence the painfully gullible. This apparently includes you.
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.