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

[Bible-boy]

Purchasing a car that one plans to keep for several years with upkeep and repairs is not the same thing as purchasing a ticket for a three hour airplane ride.

You already mentioned this Dem talking point previously and it was refuted then. Repeating it does not make it any more valid now. When my 1995 Chevy Suburban with 250,000 miles on it finally gives up the ghost (I'm hoping to get another 50,000 out of it) I will not think twice about purchasing another Chevy or Chrysler to replace it. I would do so if they are in bankruptcy or not.

 

[Bible-boy]

1) Do you oppose the southern states giving taxpayer $$$ to the foreign automakers to come build plants in their states?

In principle yes.

2) Are you advocating that the southern state governments dictate to the foreign automakers how to spend their money since they have received taxpayer $$$?

I think what you are calling "state subsidies" in reality are tax credits or tax incentives. I could be wrong, but I don't think the state legislatures actually gave taxpayer $$$ to those companies in order to get them to locate in their respective states.

Before jumping on the training that the states provided for prospective autoworkers you must consider the fact that when the southern textile industry went overseas the states where already re-educating out of work textile workers for new jobs. So they simply directed those former textile factory workers into the training for autoworkers.

 

[carpro]

1) Do you oppose the southern states giving taxpayer $$$ to the foreign automakers to come build plants in their states?

I do. In the 1980's, Illinois offered Mitsubishi $249 Million in tax "subsidies" to build a plant there. Is Illinois a "southern state"?

But it's a moot point.

It didn't happen.

No taxpayer dollars have been handed out to any foreign manufacturer as an incentive to build there.

 

[just-want-peace]

Originally Posted by KenH
1) Do you oppose the southern states giving taxpayer $$$ to the foreign automakers to come build plants in their states?

Totally irrelevant to this thread.

Each state is free to do whatever the citizens of that state are agreeable to. Has no bearing on the issue of federal bail-out.

Also, all this "compassion" for the worker is sorely misplaced. If you find you have a rapidly growing cancer, you are only hurting your chances of survival if you take a few Tylenol every day to reduce the pain. You are either going to have to have radical surgery/chemo, both, OR you are going to die.

The Tylenol is helping nothing more than the symptom; not doing squat to heal you.

Same with this dinosaur of industry - either the "cancer" gets excised, or death will just be delayed a bit.

If they aren't willing to go under the knife, then they fade into oblivion, bail-out or no!!

So if you truly have compassion for the worker, pray for the waste & fat to get deleted and rebuild leaner & meaner with a future - other than planned obsolescence and overt greed by unions/mgmt.

 

[OldRegular]

Look folks, I don't buy either statement--that Republicans hate our country, or that Democrats hate our country. It bothers me how quickly the OP jumped to that conclusion.

I don't either but I do believe that there are a lot of far left democrats who want to turn our constitutional Republic into a socialist state.

 

[OldRegular]

To achieve that amount of savings per car would mean relieving companies of the burden of providing health care coverage and instituting a single payer national healthcare system; which, by the way I am in favor of doing.

Confirms my earlier post that some far left democrats want to make the USA a socialist state. If we go for socialist medicine where will all the people in our neighbor to the north who get seriously ill go for medical treatment?

 

[Bible-boy]

Look folks, I don't buy either statement--that Republicans hate our country, or that Democrats hate our country. It bothers me how quickly the OP jumped to that conclusion.

I fully agree. No one ought to be questioning anyone's love of country. However, it is completely acceptable for us to debate whether or not the USA ought to remain as a democratic republic based upon free market capitalism or moved into a full blow western European style Socialist state.

 

[sag38]

Ken your argument is weak. Any company, despite it's country of origin or what it manufactures, that is seeking to build a major manufacturing plant, anywhere in the U.S., will receive tax breaks.

 

[carpro]

Ken your argument is weak. Any company, despite it's country of origin or what it manufactures, that is seeking to build a major manufacturing plant, anywhere in the U.S., will receive tax breaks.

And the premise is faulty in the first place.

Tax incentives are a side benefit for the manufacturers. They select right to work states because of the labor savings, not tax incentives.

 

[KenH]

I don't either but I do believe that there are a lot of far left democrats who want to turn our constitutional Republic into a socialist state.

Democratic socialism is not incompatible with a constitutional republic.

See: www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-07-0024.html

 

[Bible-boy]

Democratic socialism is not incompatible with a constitutional republic.

See: www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-07-0024.html

The USA was founded as a democratic Republc based on free market capitalism (think the teachings of Adam Smith), individual liberty, individual responsibility, and individual return of the fruits of one's labor. It was not founded to be a democratic socialist state. Here's an idea rather than try to force the US and its conservative minded free market capitalists to become something it was not founded to be, how about if all those who want to live under democratic socialism move across the northern border or over to western Europe?

I don't know about you, but my family has been here since A.D. 1619 and my ancestors who sacrificed, fought, bled, and died to free this nation from European control did not do so in order for us (their descentants) to attempt to turn it back into Europe.

 

[rbell]

Democratic socialism is not incompatible with a constitutional republic.

See: www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-07-0024.html

It is incompatible with individual liberty.

And we, here, practice such.

Once again...good luck finding a country successful at your system.

 

[JustChristian]

The USA was founded as democratic Republc based on free market capitalism (think the teachings of Adam Smith). It was not founded to be a democratic socialist state. Here's an idea rather than try to force the US and its conservative minded free market capitalists to become something it was not founded to be, how about if all those who want to live under democratic socialism move across the northern border or over to western Europe?

I don't about you, but my family has been here since A.D. 1619 and my ancestors who sacrificed, fought, bled, and died to free this nation from European control did not do so in order for us (their descentants) to attempt to turn it back into Europe.

Then why have we turned to socialism under President Bush?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Because he gave in to the left. He allowed the overseers to rob us blind, people on both sides got really rich, the ponzi schemes collapsed, the unions threatened to pull their support if the building contracts stopped, so the loans had to keep happening, and Bush never really minds being a fall guy. But he's busy figgering out who to pardon, anyway.

 

[Bible-boy]

Then why have we turned to socialism under President Bush?

We've already addressed this. So for at least the third time here we go. It did not just happen under President Bush. It has been happening here, just as in the U.K. following WWII, because Liberal/Socialist Democrats have steadily moved us to the left and "conservative" Republicans did nothing to reverse the course by legislation/policy. They simply stood pat. Until Reagan came along. He fixed a few things. However, since his time in office the Liberal/Socialist Democrats have again continued to move us to the Left and "conservative" Republicans once again compromised with them or just stood pat. They (the GOP) may have given lip service to conservative principles. However, when they were given a mandate with control of both Houses of Congress and the White House they failed to act to reverse the course and in some cases acted no different than the Liberal/Socialist Democrats by engaging in unchecked government spending, the creation of huge bureaucratic programs, and passing burdensome government regulations. Both parties are at fault. It is not just one or the other.

 

[LeBuick]

Uh huh.

But the fact remains that there have not been any wage concessions, an absolute necessity to make GM a viable company once again.

GM needs to shut down or declare bankruptcy.

Their union leeches deserve no better.

Not really, the workers in the south make about $24/hr while the UAW workers average $28/hr. It's not really the wages, it's the benefits. Example, they have completely free health care. Nothing deducted from their check. No co-pays at the doctor. It is all paid for by the company. The retiree's get pretty much the same health benefits. That has to be expensive.

 

[Bible-boy]

Not really, the workers in the south make about $24/hr while the UAW workers average $28/hr. It's not really the wages, it's the benefits. Example, they have completely free health care. Nothing deducted from their check. No co-pays at the doctor. It is all paid for by the company. The retiree's get pretty much the same health benefits. That has to be expensive.

It's a combination of both wages and benefits (regarding the UAW workers). Even at a small difference of $4.00/hour. Think about it, say there are 100 people working a line at $28/hour. That is $400/per hour added to the cost of making cars on that one line. Then throw in the massive UAW benefits and the rate skyrockets.

 

[LeBuick]

It's a combination of both wages and benefits (regarding the UAW workers). Even at a small difference of $4.00/hour. Think about it, say there are 100 people working a line at $28/hour. That is $400/per hour added to the cost of making cars on that one line. Then throw in the massive UAW benefits and the rate skyrockets.

Then there is the infamous paying laid off workers 96% of their salary... Now who in management approved that one?

 

[Bible-boy]

Then there is the infamous paying laid off workers 96% of their salary... Now who in management approved that one?

It was just another nail in the coffin of American Auto Manufacturing at the hands of the UAW and its Socialist backers. You know I was thinking about this earlier today. Why can't the UAW charge a few extra bucks for membership and use that money to purchase unemployment insurance on behalf of its members and leave the company out of the picture?

 

[KenH]

how about if all those who want to live under democratic socialism move across the northern border or over to western Europe?

No thanks. We will stay and try to move this nation that we love toward progress where the government looks for someone other than the wealthy and big corporations.

I guess right-wingers don't have confidence in our democratic republic form of government. It seems like a lot of them always want those who don't march in lockstep with their ideology to leave the country.