Can you back up your claims with factual information from other reputable sources?

Do you have any experience working in a plant environment? Stamping plant? Assembly plant? In a manufacturing environment these people are often laid off or work on an as needed basis - can you state that these two conditions are made by those you claim do the same job but make less? Please be more descriptive of their jobs, so we can truly do an apples to apples comparison.

If I found out that someone did a job like yours, and made less. Do I have the right to demand you to lower your income? Can I do that? Can you tell me how much you make so I can start doing my research.

And what if UAW workers have NICE everything... Where does it state in our Constitution that they must get down so we are all at the same level of pay, benefits, and standards of living? What is it your suggesting here?

What about lotto winners? Are they deserving of what they get? S***, did they work for it?

What about nurses? Should they be making as much as Doctors? Hell, my wife's a nurse, and she's over worked, and underpaid. Just ask any nurse.

See attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Depression

To paraphrase the POTUS, "bring it on". If this is what it takes to change things in this country, then bring it on. We've had innumerable chances to do things differently, and have always chosen the most utterly selfish ways out as a nation. If that's no longer an option, then too ****ing bad for all of us. God forbid the government is forced to spend $1 trillion next year on something other than war toys.

I totally agree. I think the turmoil that we are seeing may just be the tip of the iceberg. Over 500,000 people have applied for unemployment in November alone. This appears not to be a "normal recession" this may just turn out to be the next global depression. I am scared (and I never said anything about a 1983 Tempo).

I don't know what the answer is. Bailout? Chapter 11? I don't know. I do know that this is unsustainable.

What appeals to you? The Smoot-Hawley tariff act?

I guess I do not see a call to action in your post.

1. Zero bailouts.

2. Government takeovers, if necessary, of the big three deemed "too big to fail".

3. Spreading the word that corporations incapable of managing their accounts will be summarily assimilated from this point on.

What I think will happen, on the other hand, is familiar enough:

1. More fingerwagging.

2. More bailouts.

3. More bad practices.

4. Staving off the inevitable collapse for a little longer.

Why, sure I can. All I have to do is mooch down to the general store and ask people what they're making in wages and benefits -- or for that matter, look at my own wages nad benefits. That "reputable" enough for you?

Why on earth would I need any of that in order to compare apples to apples?

...and then they go to the Job Bank. Do you really want to go there? I don't think so.

Don't try to change the subject and turn this into a debate about manufacturing workers vs. everybody else, because it isn't. The manufacturers of America aren't in Washington asking for bailout money; the Big 3 are, so that's what we're talking about. Stick to the subject at hand.

Is your reading comprehension that poor that you really do not understand a very simple point? You are asking people who have less to bail out people who have more. Do you expect them to jump up and down yelling, "Oh yes please, sign me up"?

Almost everyone is to blame for this.

We all made this economy what it is by going to fast food restaurants several times a week (instead of once per month), shopping at Wal-Mart instead of local stores, buying huge vehicles, and obnoxiously large homes that have more lightbulbs in the master bedroom than a fifties home had in the whole house.

We wanted cellphones, Ipods, computers, portable computers, microwave ovens, icemakers, huge TVs, car video systems, several vacations per year, and so much more.


People often say, "the middle class had it better in the fifties and sixties."

Yeah, but they had one car, a one-car garage, and a 1300 square foot home. Kids rode bikes and threw a football instead of video games, and both the football and bike cost about the same then as now, because Americans made them, sold them, bought them.

Imports were rare. If from Europe, they were expensive. If from Asia, they were crap (and often still are).


We did this to ourselves.

When I was a kid, the only place you could use a credit card was at a department store, and gas stations had their own credit cards. But nobody swiped a credit card at a fast food restaurant or the grocery store. You wrote a check at the grocery store or paid cash.


The Great Depression had the same causes, and so will this great depression. That's what this is. It won't turn around anytime soon.

As for the American car companies? They got screwed in many ways:

1. They decided in the mid-seventies to produce crappy cars, and continued that tradition well into the early 90s. They had the best cars in the world for decades, including up into the early seventies, but then they threw quality out the window and produced junk. Few people could trust them after that.

2. They got suckered by big oil and pushed SUVs, and now big oil is leaving them high and dry. Big oil should bail them out.

3. It's too late. Honda and Toyota make a far superior product and everyone who is honest knows this. I hear people say that American cars are just as good, but it simply isn't true. A Toyota or Honda with 100k miles is just getting started. A Ford truck or SUV needs to be rebuilt soon at that millage.


The middle class was always small until after WWII. It had a good run, but maybe its time is over.

Throughout most of our nation's history there was a small wealthy class, a small middle class, and a huge lower class. Why not again?

I agree with your third point, but your second infantilizes the auto industry. They weren't suckered by big oil; they formed a willing alliance, and have reaped the profits for decades.

It's not going to mean more bikes it's going to mean new companies. My personal opinion is that we should let them fail. They bet on big luxury trucks and they failed to diversify. Now they can't sell cars and they can't handle their union: It's time to die.

I do believe bankruptcy will kill these companies. They're not like airlines: They sell you a service you'll use for 5-10 years. I definitely would count a GM warranty as less than worthless today and their warranty is a major selling point on their cars.

This sucks for auto workers. So, if we want to help them let's send them each a couple grand to move and find a job... Or, here's a crazy thought, just let the market sort itself out ;).

^ Apparently, we like believing in the myth of a "free market" when it suits us, but resort to corporate welfare whenever reality sets in. :lol:

That's not a factor of our consumerist society. That's because of the increasingly low cost of the integrated circuit which is fueled by improving technology.

Big generalization here. There are many, many Ford Trucks and SUV's with 100's of thousands of miles on their clocks going strong. In general I would say the Toyota and Honda had been putting out a better quality product than the once big three, but the gap has been closing recently. If I wanted (which I don't) to buy a full size truck, it would be an American truck. If I wanted to buy an efficient mid-size car, it would be an Asian (Subaru, Mazda included).

I fail to understand your point. The market spoke: GM, Ford and Chrysler suck. It's saying: "We don't like them, give us a new one." The corporate welfare would just deny what everyone is asking for with their dollars. I see no reason to interject in this instance.

What about this isn't a market?

The corporate welfare is the very suggestion of bailing out failed corporations. We keep pretending to support a "free market", but whenever the "we're too big to fail" trump card is pulled, everyone falls back into line and goes along with it.

We just saw it with the banks, and we're about to see it again with the auto industries. We'll see it three months from now with the next "too big to fail" corporation.

But I wasn't saying that they're too big to fail or that we should bail them out. Surely you were referring to our society as a whole and not to my post? I assumed that the carrot indicated that you were responding to me.

Yes, I meant society. I was pointing to your post in agreement. :D

We'll have to bail out Walmart? :eek:

It's reputable enough for me, so I think I'll stop here.

I think Fairmont has a point, though. When you pay cash or write a check, you know you're spending -- and you should when you pay with credit or a debit card, too, but for a lot of people, it feels less like spending. Credit spending, in particular, fools a lot of people because it allows them not to look closely at what a purchase will cost them. I remember maybe ten years ago, I was speaking to a recent college grad with a shiny new credit card and a relatively modest line of credit. She was all happy about her new purchasing power, and was all set to go out and spend a couple thousand dollars furnishing her new apartment. I pointed out that if she did that -- and spent not one cent more using that card -- she would be paying approximately $180 a month for a year to clear that debt. The expenditure wasn't real to her until she thought about that $180 monthly payment. Credit cards, particularly the way they've been marketed, don't encourage people to really think about the consequences of a purchase or to ask themselves if they really need the item.

Fairmont also has the right of it, that the road to prosperity isn't a magic new money pipe into our economy -- it lies instead in reevaluating what "prosperity" means.