33 replies to this topic

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

scabbies needs to skidaddle out of Opel, Eisenach and Darmstadt. He needs to look over a map with Rick Perry.

Right after taking his meds for his schizophrenia, of course.

It's called volunteer work, scabbies. You might have worth in the world just yet. Help a fellow pathetic tea bagger out. I don't think you 6000+ wasted, worthless comments is cutting it.

You could be less of a waste just yet.

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Isn't it great the stories that the schizophrenic scabbies makes up? How cute. He goes to one of his tea bag sites to counter the german-economic progressive model. Finds a newspaper article there and makes up a little cute fantasy story about a foreign exchange student. How adorable.

I love the stories that people with disabilities come up with! They have soooooo much time on their hands. So much time to imagine these ridiculously cute scenarios right after spending wasted time on a tea bag corporite-astroturf site.

Scabbies, if it wasn't for your rash, I am sure somebody would like you. Until then you will just be alone and pathetic in your own little world. You try to make Teamsters swallow your crap. It gives you meaning to counter your worthlessness.

Kind of sad, actually

[xg22]

scb, on December 29 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

-xg22-

A note here;. Wikipedia shows that the U.S. produced 7,761,445 automobiles in 2010, while Germany produced 5,985,985. "Worldometers" (a statistics site, "http://www.worldometers.info/cars/") says that in 2010, the U.S. produced 11,263,986 total vehicles (that's private and commercial), while Germany produced 5,819,614. And "The Auto Insurance" ("http://www.theautoinsurance.com/the-worlds-top-auto-manufacturers/") has a graphic which clearly shows the ranking fo the world's largest automobile manufacturing companies, placing Germany BELOW the U.S. You might also want to take a look at Brian Bloch's article titled "Globalisation and Downsizing in Germany", a PDF document at "www.management-aims.com/PapersMgmt/23Bloch.pdf".

Anyway, I don't know where the claim that...

"German car manufacturers make more than twice as many cars as American manufacturers."

....came from, but it appears inaccurate. Which, of course, would reflect on the entire premise.

As for wages and "how does that work", having lived and worked in Germany, including working with unions, and having as a very good friend a German who is the employee representative on his firm's works council,

-scb-

Yes upon review of the story the headline is somewhat misleading. What it should have said is 'German maufacturers make more cars in Germany than in America' despite the wage difference.



The former head of the Obama administration's auto task force says he should have pushed the UAW for steeper sacrifices in the GM bailout, including wage cuts. The people earning $9 a hour in a suburban Detroit GM plant would disagree.

Steven Rattner told a luncheon in Detroit on Thursday that while the $50 billion GM bailout was successful, "we should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." He also said that "friends on Wall Street" were concerned by GM's earnings and communications with the market.

Meanwhile, at GM's Orion Township, Mich., plant about 45 minutes away from where Rattner spoke, there are three tiers of hourly workers. Roughly 900 workers at the top tier, the most senior UAW workers, make $29 an hour, a rate unchanged since 2008. Another 500 or so UAW workers are paid about $16 an hour — a rate, adjusted for inflation, equal to the famed $5 a day Henry Ford started paying his workers in 1914.

And at the bottom scale are 200-odd workers technically employed by an outside supplier but who work in the plant moving parts to the assembly line, jobs once done by GM workers paid $29 an hour. The contractors' pay: $9 an hour with no health care, a rate which over a year's work would leave them below the poverty level for a family of four.

GM's contract with the UAW that convinced the company to move small-car production to Orion from South Korea allows it to shift such work to the outside supplier. That supplier has resisted UAW bargaining, and the tensions have grown high enough that UAW workers at the plant picketed earlier this month and sought approval from the union for a strike. (They delayed one planned picket so that President Obama could tour the plant with South Korea's president).

GM's North American arm posted operating profits of $5.7 billion in the past nine months, on which it will pay little to no federal income tax thanks to a law passed during the bailout preserving tax credits from the years when it bled money. The estimated savings to GM of its tiered wages at Orion: $112 per vehicle, on Chevy Sonics and Buick Veranos that start at $14,500, and can sell for $29,000. By GM's own stats, $29,000 is also the average annual wage of all GM hourly and salaried workers at Orion.

The UAW wants to move tier two workers up in the coming years, while all three Detroit automakers expect to expand the number of workers being paid the lower wage. Rattner's friends on Wall Street may want GM to cut deeper and answer their whims, but I don't see many of them embracing a life of poverty just to keep their jobs -- despite their far larger bailout.

http://autos.yahoo.c...-160603932.html


The Times is reporting that Steven Rattner, the former car czar and private equity potentate, is settling the S.E.C.’s kickback charges connected to the gargantuan New York State pension fund scandal. He will have to pay over $5 million, but, no matter how big that sum ends up, the money won’t be nearly as damaging as the multi-year ban from the securities industry that the paper says he’s accepted. Mr. Rattner, who is not only a confidant of Mayor Bloomberg’s, but has helped guide his billion-dollar charitable foundation, will never quite be the same



http://www.nytimes.c...rattner.html?hp

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

This chart explains why a 90% tax rates actually creates jobs.

[egghead]

"They are not spending it because there is no incentive for them to do so"

and the answer is--Tax the crap out of them so they invest the money in business to obtain a lower tax rate--C'mon Buster --Does anyone on the left have a clue about investment outflows and return analysis--This chart would suck investment capital out of the US into every tax haven in the world

We already have the most progressive tax system in the world--The uncomfortable truth for the left is--For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes--

and that means that as good old Maggie Thatcher once told the Europeans-"is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

[RCorrie]

unionbustersandtrollsout, on January 19 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

If that's a woman I want to see her ******.

[Farley]

If Corporations are people/.......who is to determine if they are "female corporations" or "male corporations" so they can "merge"???? A good point to ponder

[xg22]

Somebody has to pay for the wars, infrastructure, corporate welfare etc., so if not those who benefit most from America, who then?


Grover Norquist: GOP will impeach Obama if he doesn't extend Bush tax cuts


Norquist certainly revels in his power, but suggesting Republicans impeach the president over tax cuts is wildly outlandish. According to the constitution, the president, vice president, or public officials can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Preserving a tax cut that gives more to the top 1 percent than the average income of the 99 percent hardly qualifies. But if Norquist’s only goal is to “crush the other team,” it seems he’ll stop at nothing to do so.


more

http://thinkprogress...-bush-tax-cuts/

[scb]

-xg-

Since 46-47% of the households in the country are paying NOTHING in Federal income taxes - and hence are undeniably those who are "benefit[ing] the most from America" relative to what they're paying INTO America, maybe the FIRST step that should be taken is getting these freeloaders to pay at least SOMETHING rather that trying to force those who are ALREADY paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes to cough-up more. Right now, some moth-eating senior like me who IS paying Federal income tax - of whatever amount - is paying MORE than the ENTIRE SUM of that paid by almost HALF the country's population. To me, that situation seems simply unsustainable for us as a nation.

Beyond that, who's "giving more" to the "top 1%"? I don't see anybody GIVING them anything. Rather, I'm seeing more and more guys like you who are pissed-off because they can't seem to find a way to TAKE more from them! To me, that's a significant difference....equivalent to unions saying that they've granted "concessions"...as if they ever GAVE something BACK that they actually OWNED in the first place!

Don't get me wrong; I'm well aware that any attempts to impeach Obama aren't likely to go far. But, in terms of what he's accomplished for the country - and the attitude he's expressed to those who SUSTAIN the country in comparison to those who sustain HIM through "purchased" votes, I can't see where the man has anything to brag about, either.

-scb-

[xg22]

The thing about taxes, and we are talking Federal Income taxes, is that most of the large companies already have an army of accountants and lawyers to get out of paying most if not all of their taxes.

So if the GOP is crying for 'small' biz to pay no FIT how would that improve the economy for anyone other than that small biz owner?

Let's say that a small biz pays $12,000,0 0 a year in FIT. If all of a sudden this struggling owner has an extra $1000.00 a month do you think he will hire someone or sit on the money to see if his biz survives? I know what I would do and that would be to sit on it. Why would I hire someone if I don't have the business to generate enough security for my own survival?



A Majority Of Small Business Owners Favor Letting The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Expire

A majority of small business owners also favor letting the Bush tax cuts lapse for those making more than $250,000, blunting the Republican claim that letting those tax cuts expire would disproportionately harm small businesses.

http://smallbusiness...Poll_Report.pdf

[scb]

-xg-

Not sure you're comparing apples and oranges when you're speaking of "large companies" and "small businesses". Most "large companies" that I know of are incorporated...and I think a very good case could be made about their not having to pay (as "corporations") any FIT at all, since the profits they make will be taxed on the individual shareholders; i.e - the owners are "double-taxed".

Now many small businesses (depending on what you term "small") are either un-incorporated or are of the S-corporation type, which avoid such double-taxation.

And, again, things depend on what one terms "small business". It's kinda' like the claims of "the average CEO makes...." such and such in wages; the fact is, if all "CEO's" of corporations (many, MANY of which are essentially nothing more than paper and/or hobby constructs!) are taken as part of the average, their pay is probably minimal indeed. Same with small business. After all, the guy up the street who runs a one-man yard mowing business, or the individual one house past him who offers a seasonal tax preparation service function as "small businesses"...but neither offer as much to the economy (nor probably make as much to be taxed) as the individual proprietor tool-and-die shop (or whatever) uptown that hires a dozen or so people and generates revenue that could be in the millions. Perhaps the first two examples wouldn't mind letting the tax cuts expire, 'cause they won't be affected. They neither make much money to be taxed, nor have much to offer (in terms of employment) in any case. Not so with the small business that is also a significant employer.

I guess a pertinent question is one of whether or not those who DO contribute should be forced to contribute more by the votes of those who basically DON'T contribute at all.. That type of thing might work for a while but, in the long run, I think you run into the problem that de Tocqueville foresaw in quotes like "A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."

Today, unfortunately, all those who are voting themselves (and receiving!) governmental benefits are NOT significantly the ones who are paying for it. I just don't think that, over the long term, that type of situation can last. Sooner or later, those who are paying more than there share of the freight are going to say "Enough!". And then what happens?

-scb-

[xg22]

Highest Earning American Made $1,442,308 an HOUR in 2011



http://www.classwarf...n-hour-in-2011/

[Farley]

xg22.....I would take exception with the verb "made" since in no reasonable application could anyone "make" or "earn" 1.4 million dollars an hour.......maybe better verbs would be "extracted", "confiscated", "appropriated" etc. I do not mean to take exception with your point....but I see that the goBP has a language guru, Frank Luntz, who writes their policies in provocative language, like "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax" to make sanity appear to be sinister. ..........we should bring a sense of honest outrage to what the rightwing proposes and actually does.