Southern States Gave Auto Companies Tax-breaks and Cash for Training

[KenH]

The autoworkers in the southern right to work states that do not have unions sure seem to be able to feed their families.

Yes, with state government subsidies. So there.

 

[rbell]

Yes, with state government subsidies.

Oh, so you can say there are no subsidies whatsoever in Michigan and other union states?

Otherwise your comparison is flawed at best, dishonest at worst.

Neither would surprise me, after your outbursts on this thread.

 

[carpro]

Yes, with state government subsidies.

That's a dishonest statement.

Autoworkers receive no state government subsidies.

None at all.

 

[KenH]

Yeah, I understand, rbell. Pointing out Republican hypocrisy in this forum doesn't sit well with some folks.

 

[KenH]

That's a dishonest statement.

Not at all. These foreign automakers do. And they wouldn't be in those states without the taxpayer largesse.

 

[rbell]

Ken, I've given many facts, on this thread and others.

The experiment you so greatly desire died in Albania, East Germany, Romania, and others. Sorry you missed out.

Maybe North Korea is taking applicants. Good luck finding one of their cars to drive.

 

[KenH]

rbell, I will stand up for America. It's too bad a lot of Republicans won't. But a lot of Republicans will stand up for foreign companies over American companies.

 

[carpro]

Yeah, I understand, rbell. Pointing out Republican hypocrisy in this forum doesn't sit well with some folks.

I doubt there is anything at all that you can point out to anyone here that matters very much at all.

Trying to decide how far in the air your feet are planted has pretty well destroyed your credibility.

Are you a libertarian or a wild eyed screaming liberal this week?

If another election were held next year, do you think there would be enough candidates in the race to satisfy your need to change positions and candidates like you change socks?

You have become a meaningless and bitter non contributor here at BB.

 

[Bible-boy]

Yeah, I understand, rbell. Pointing out Republican hypocrisy in this forum doesn't sit well with some folks.

First you'd have to have a valid argument to point out such. As yet you have not provided one. We don't mind if you point out something wrong, just make sure you are correct in what you are saying. In this case you are incorrect.

No southern autoworker has received any state subsidy. No southern autoworker depends on a state subsidy to feed his family. Therefore, the claim you made here is false and invalidates your whole line of argumentation. Wanna try again?

 

[rbell]

rbell, I will stand up for America.

Really? You seem to be giving our state the shaft.

We have people that work down here too...feed their families, even.

Oh, I forgot. They aren't union, and many are Republican.

That makes them America haters and less than americans. My bad.

 

[carpro]

Not at all. These foreign automakers do. And they wouldn't be in those states without the taxpayer largesse.

You are still being dishonest.

Your statement was that "autoworkers" received state government subsidies.

That is untrue.

 

[KenH]

No need to try again. The point I made is quite valid. You just won't accept the truth.

Good night. Have a pleasant evening. I have enjoyed tonight's debate.

 

[LeBuick]

But the companies can't turn the same amount of profit per car sold due to the over-reaching demands of the UAW. They may have sold more cars but what is the difference in the balance sheets between the U.S. Automakers and the foreign guys? Which company's back is being broken by the UAW and which is not?

You are right, I was just pointing out their product is on par but you are right their overhead makes them less profitable. However the UAW is not the only detractor from profitability. The Big 3 have a lot of executive fat that also get super benefits and huge bonuses.

 

[Bible-boy]

No need to try again. The point I made is quite valid. You just won't accept the truth.

Good night. Have a pleasant evening. I have enjoyed tonight's debate.

Sorry to break it to you but you attempted to claim that non-union southern autoworkers relied on state subsidies to feed their families (according to the context of the debate thread, quoted posts, and replies). That is a false statement. It invalidates your whole line of argumentation. My acceptance of the truth has no bearing upon whether or not your statement was correct and valid (which it was not). :tonofbricks: Just admit that you mis-spoke in the heat of the debate and we can move on.:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

You are right, I was just pointing out their product is on par but you are right their overhead makes them less profitable. However the UAW is not the only detractor from profitability. The Big 3 have a lot of executive fat that also get super benefits and huge bonuses.

Small change, but it seems to loom large in your thinking. You bring it up at every opportunity, even though the auto executives have addressed the issue.

Many executives have agreed to work for $1.00 a year, if necessary.

The UAW has made no concessions whatsoever.

With that attitude, they deserve to be unemployed.

 

[carpro]

Sorry to break it to you but you attempted to claim that non-union southern autoworkers relied on state subsidies to feed their families (according to the context of the debate thread, quoted posts, and replies). That is a false statement. It invalidates your whole line of argumentation. My acceptance of the truth has no bearing upon whether or not your statement was correct and valid (which it was not). :tonofbricks: Just admit that you mis-spoke in the heat of the debate and we can move on.:thumbs:

That won't happen. I don't believe Ken ever "mis-speaks". His falsehoods are deliberate.

 

[Bible-boy]

Small change, but it seems to loom large in your thinking. You bring it up at every opportunity, even though the auto executives have addressed the issue.

Many executives have agreed to work for $1.00 a year, if necessary.

The UAW has made no concessions whatsoever.

With that attitude, they deserve to be unemployed.

Hey,

I was gonna say that....

 

[LeBuick]

Small change, but it seems to loom large in your thinking. You bring it up at every opportunity, even though the auto executives have addressed the issue.

Many executives have agreed to work for $1.00 a year, if necessary.

The UAW has made no concessions whatsoever.

With that attitude, they deserve to be unemployed.

I only know of the CEO's who agreed to take $1/yr which is a deceptive statement since they still get expense accounts, stocks and bonuses which generally amount to more than their salary.

The UAW did make concessions, just not the ones the GOP wanted. I am not defending the UAW, I don't see why a company should pay a laid off worker. It really defeats the purpose of laying them off.

 

[Revmitchell]

I only know of the CEO's who agreed to take $1/yr which is a deceptive statement since they still get expense accounts, stocks and bonuses which generally amount to more than their salary.

The UAW did make concessions, just not the ones the GOP wanted. I am not defending the UAW, I don't see why a company should pay a laid off worker. It really defeats the purpose of laying them off.

What concessions did they make and what concessions did the GOP want from them?

 

[carpro]

The UAW did make concessions, just not the ones the GOP wanted. I am not defending the UAW, I don't see why a company should pay a laid off worker. It really defeats the purpose of laying them off.

What are their "concessions"?

Last I read was that they would make no concessions until 2011. I thought it was a misprint.

Unfortunately it wasn't.:BangHead: