finknottle

I must be mistaken - I had heard that people were upset about unemployment. Why aren't all those people becoming police officers? What do union autoworkers bring to the table that laid off employees from Circuit City, real estate agents, or financial analysts don't, other than a pre-disposition to donuts?

Investments coming from a giant pot of cash that the automakers will fork over, probably on the order of $40 billion when all is said and done. http://blog.mlive.com/statewidebusinesssto...would_give.html In other words, the unions are getting their compensation for future costs in advance, insulating them against the possible failure of the companies. Pretty convenient that the democrats want to fork over some money right away, huh? But that infusion comes from somewhere. It saddles the companies with added debt. It is benefits compensation anyway you look at it. In fact, part of the financial problems they are facing right now stem from making the $4 billion December contribution: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/uaw-d02.shtml As watchdog groups point out, this plan carries great risk of abuse. It rids the companies of a problem albeit at great cost, but the retirees money is under the control of organizations which in the past were notorious for corruption. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-...etirees-2211-1/

Getting rid of ISI is not that simple, nor even is simply having them cut off all ties. Forget about the issues of sympathy. These militant groups exist and are popular, with or without government support. The Pakistani government needs visibility into them simply to know what's going on. You can't do that without maintaining friendly liason relations - a militant is only going to talk to you if they think you are at least sympathetic. If the ISI cuts off all dialog, they alienate these groups through and through and wind up having no idea of what they are up to. That would be very dangerous, to say the least.

My understanding is that while the control and responsibility for the healthcare will shift to the unions, the companies will still be making set contributions - it is simply a more predictable cost. Or do you think their contributions will stop entirely, and UAW will be paying for this out of their own money? Likewise, the rest of the benefit contributions have not disappeared off of their balance sheets. The 3 to 4 dollar figure is simply a shiny talking point, designed to sway the gullible.

Isn't the salient feature of corruption that you don't get get investigated, arrested and convicted for things that would make a politician blush in law-abiding states?

And yet they still would be making more than American autoworkers working for other companies. Come back when they are willing to get less than the Nissan workers to save their jobs, then we might be more sympathetic.

Let me see if I have this right. We want to spend taxpayer money helpling the big 3 become more competative. That means getting more of the market share. As I've heard explained by pundit after pundit, that also means getting more Americans to buy American. Ok, so let's suppose the big 3 rear up triumphantly and start taking market share back from Nissan and Honda. Doesn't that threaten to put their people here out of work? Won't the loss of US production endanger all the people who make their livings in the supply chain? Will we be spending 2009 figuring out how to give Nissan US and Honda US money so that they can become competative with the big 3? Help me out here...

Remind me again what the severance package is for a UAW worker that the company would like to fire for underperforming? Oh, that's right - he gets to keep his job. You can't fire him without 10 years of litigation. Not bad. Or, you can try to ease him out with early retirement - full pension and health care plus up to 70k was what was offered last year.

Fair enough. But how does a retiring autoworker at a failing company compare to his peers at other companies? He gets a severance package way beyond what the others get, and a better health insurance for life. Is his reward not also fiscally irresponsible? Why should those still working pay so that he can maintain a better lifestyle than they do?

Remind me why they should be making more than the people we aren't helping? What about management? Instead of all this dollar a year talk, what would you say to bailing them out as long as they only make 4% more than corresponding management at Nissan and Honda?

Oh yeah? I suppose Iran has curtailed it's support of Hezbollah's activities then? Lawsuits like this are a joke. They fall in fact against the body of international law, which you normally seem to hold in high regard. Foreign countries cannot be sued in US courts - it was a 1996 ammendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which allowed suits to proceed only against states deemed sponsors of Terrorism by the Department of State. This is at odds with the way other countries operate, and threatons to undermine the tradition against frivolous judgement like, say, awarding $100 billion in a Cuban court to somebody suing the USG. What generally happens is that an award is granted in a local court, and the plaintiffs appeal to congress to pay for it out of frozen assets. That simply means that when relations are normallized, the USG is on the hook for making up for the depeleted assets of getting an agreement that the award be honored. In the Anderson case, the Iranian government did not respond to the lawsuit. It was awarded by a district court judge entirely without their presence, input, or defence. Yeah, the courts are a great way to engage them.

I'm not really following this soap opera, but my understanding is that the law was changed precisely because P. Diddy got off like that.

And you can keep your nationalistic ideals too. If Japan wants to pump money into Nissan while Nissan employs workers here, let them. Those employees are just as much citizens as are the workers of the big 3. Or should we have a special rule, where if you work for a foreign company you don't get the same federal largess as somebody working for a US company? And on the flip side, there is talk of the Swedes helping out Saab with a loan. Should GM be penalized for that?

Because they are getting the benefit of the money. The other companies, whose limiting of their expenses played at least some part in their comparitive health, aren't getting diddly for their moderation. And by company I'm including the workers, who choose to live in right-to-work states and not be forced to join the UAW. The big 3 autoworkers should at least reap a symbolic something of what they've sown. Why should they get more than their peers in good times and by federal parachute get the same in bad?

Congress keeps talking tough about the conditions they will place on the big 3 before handing our our money. They will get the money in the end because it is Michigan, a politically important state to the Democrats. But in the spirit of Christmas, what conditions would YOU like to see imposed? Here is what I want. We hear a lot of talk about the executives making too much, and that they should take a symbolic pay cut. Fine. How about if we require the average compensation of the big 3 auto workers to be one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout? Not only is that fairer to the US employees of Nissan et al, it might actually make a difference.

On a related topic, there was an interesting article in today's Washington Times. GM won the European car of the year award, first time in 22 years. It edged out Ford, while both finished well ahead of the nearest competitors Alpha Romeo and VW's Golf. Unfortunately, neither entrants are available in the US market. Either management doesn't think we would want them, or if they were to be sold in the US they would have to be made in the US at US wages, adding a few thousand dollars to the price and erasing their edge.

Trees have grown and died ever since the dinosaurs. Trees have been falling down long before humans appeared and I'm sure will continue long after we are all gone. It's not man's fault...It's a cyclical Earth event. Ergo - logging doesn't exist.

Isn't the appearance of all these pirates supposed to herald the coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I'm not convinced this is AQ or has anything to do with the US. The world doesn't revolve around us, nor is everything a reaction to the evil of Bush. Terrorism exists around the world, and a kinder, gentler more thoughtful US will not change the simple fact that it is a cost-effective method for individuals to strike out against the public and be heard. India has been combatting terrorism for quite a while now, and there have been many attacks just this past year - none were part of the AQ movement. It's probably Muslim extremists (with their own beefs, nothing to do with AQ), but it could just as easily have been Hindu nationalists angry about the recent arrests on terrorism charges, or maybe disgruntled castes wanting in on the affirmative action action, or their own autonomy, or maybe even the Bangledashi immigrant underground. Incidentally, India is much more vigilent about terrorism than the US. You can't even get into a tourist site without a serious pass through metal detectors and a pat-down.

Does this goal apply to uninsured illegal immigrants? They are a key driver in the rise of medical costs, after all.

Yeah, so I only know him from his op-eds and the talk shows. So enlighten me. I've at least googled his positions. You've just been spouting without offering anything to support it. You don't like wiki - fine. Give me a list of his positions, if you don't like what I came up with. I'm still waiting for some justification as to why he is considered very conservative, other than he wears that label at the NYT. What are his positions that make him a leader of conservative intellectuals?

How can I critique what you refuse to offer? He's been described here as very conservative, occupying as he does the position of token conservative on the NYT, but nobody will provide any examples of his conservative positions other than 'I've read his columns and he's a strong conservative voice.' I see very little difference between him and the geeky guy Fox trots out to represent the left in debates. I'm not asking for much - just a couple of examples of positions that would merit his being called very conservative. It is certainly not anything related to social issues - he is in favor of same -sex marriage, is a feminist, and in favor of some gun control. He has spoken out against the small government philosophy that one usually identifies with conservativism. He's certainly not an old-school conservative in foreign policy, he's more of a pro-Israel neocon. So what are his conservative credentials?

Nice - when in doubt, smugly trash wiki. I offered it as a thumbnail bio sketch - it is better than nothing, which is exactly what you have offered up to support your claims.

Are we really doing this thing again where we rationalize that second and third year players are actually rookies? I am not complaining about Trent, but gimmie a break. Flacco is a rookie. Ryan is a rookie. Trent isn't. He is what he is - a second year starter. Accept it.

What's going on right now has all the insight and value of Kremlin-watching. Obama will be his own man, and his appointees will take their marching orders from him. Whether he governs from the center or from the left won't be known for a year.