Automotive News, Media & Press - Obama sat in the 2013 GT500 and said this is what he needs.

Not a fan of Obama at all (I'm a republican) but was still neat to see the president sit in it and make the comment. I guess there is an auto show in Washington now.

For his driver I guess. Because as president he is not allowed to drive.

Obama used to own a Chrysler 300 before he ran for President. I'm sure he likes cars like a lot of people do.

For his driver I guess. Because as president he is not allowed to drive.

Are you serious? Not allowed to drive?

I'd like to sit in a car with 650 horsepower. The seat might be wet when I leave though.

What you would piss your self for sitting in a real car?!?!!?

:cool:



For his driver I guess. Because as president he is not allowed to drive.True. And that's why I can't be president (as if that's the only reason LOL). I'd get in, go through the inauguration, get back to the White House and start the briefing process:

Staff member: "Oh and Mr President you do know that while in office you CANNOT drive a car, at all."

Me: "Ummm, wait, what?!:huh: Oooooh hell no, I'm outta here!" :scream:

:lol: :D ;)

Not a fan of Obama at all (I'm a republican) but was still neat to see the president sit in it and make the comment. I guess there is an auto show in Washington now.

after the jackass says we need volts and other retarded crap... he can go screw himself.

odd to see obama hocking ford when they didnt take bailout money.

For his driver I guess. Because as president he is not allowed to drive.

lol "allowed" please. if he REALLY wanted to go for a spin, whatre they going to do? arrest him?

lol "allowed" please. if he REALLY wanted to go for a spin, whatre they going to do? arrest him?

You must be 19 years old. It more than that. If something happens to him in a non armored vehicle it can change the world as other nations might try something during the chaos. And that's just for starters.

I now want the ZL1 more.

after the jackass says we need volts and other retarded crap... he can go screw himself.

odd to see obama hocking ford when they didnt take bailout money.

For the love of fucking god, you need to read the papers or at least listen to some intelligent news for once. This shit gets old, FAST.

This was even posted on LS1tech a year ago and you still missed it. FORD TOOK MONEY....PERIOD

Fry found a $7 billion government check to Ford that was hidden from the public’s eye. Well, not really, it was mentioned on page 18 of a document submitted by Ford to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2, 2008, but who reads that stuff?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/blue-ops-the-clandestine-bailout-of-ford/

Also, if you're implying the GM used gov't money to fund the Volt you are again full of shit, Lutz just wrote an article in Forbes two days ago that clearly stated the car was developed before the bailout even occurred.

I now want the ZL1 more.

+1 :lol:

So much hate.

Lol, he did sit in the Centennial Corvette and checked out the "American Pride" 5th gen camaro also, here's some clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML5uU0lhgww&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yffVrq37v3g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW_0gwM1qxk

Too bad by 2015, everything needs to get 37mpg on average, and 54mpg average by 2025...:bang::bang::bang: He must not like the GT500 and the vette that much lol.

:cool:



True. And that's why I can't be president (as if that's the only reason LOL). I'd get in, go through the inauguration, get back to the White House and start the briefing process:

Staff member: "Oh and Mr President you do know that while in office you CANNOT drive a car, at all."

Me: "Ummm, wait, what?!:huh: Oooooh hell no, I'm outta here!" :scream:

:lol: :D ;)

Rent out VIR for the day. Tell the Press that it is cheaper than flying AF1 for a vacation. Bet you could get some car companies to provide a couple of testers. Worth a shot.

Rent out VIR for the day. Tell the Press that it is cheaper than flying AF1 for a vacation. Bet you could get some car companies to provide a couple of testers. Worth a shot.:D :thumb:

Found these online....lol


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e103/jinxergt/obamaford.jpg

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy1/Tobphotobucket/Baghdad_Al_thays.jpg?t=1328122060

Lmao thats great!

Too bad by 2015, everything needs to get 37mpg on average, and 54mpg average by 2025...:bang::bang::bang: He must not like the GT500 and the vette that much lol.

Why? I'd love a 54mpg Corvette!

Too bad by 2015, everything needs to get 37mpg on average, and 54mpg average by 2025...:bang::bang::bang: He must not like the GT500 and the vette that much lol.

I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.

Why? I'd love a 54mpg Corvette!

We're likely to say goodbye to the simple V8's we know and love and say hello to smaller displacement, forced induction, DOHC, direct injection, infinitely more complicated motors...while these types of motors have their upsides, yes, sometimes simpler is better IMO. (Lets not turn this into a DOHC/OHC v. Pushrod debate please! lol)

We're likely to say goodbye to the simple V8's we know and love and say hello to smaller displacement, forced induction, DOHC, direct injection, infinitely more complicated motors...while these types of motors have their upsides, yes, sometimes simpler is better IMO. (Lets not turn this into a DOHC/OHC v. Pushrod debate please! lol)

Weird that DOHC/OHC is supposed to be more efficient, but the 2v 4.6's got terrible gas mileage compared to the LS1's.

15/24 for a 4.6 M5

18/29 for a 5.7 M6

I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.

:cheers:

Mustang+Obama+BIG HOLE=a good time to me RON PAUL BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.

I believe you are correct. And like you said, there's a few things GM can do to improve economy in their V8s. Direct injection and variable valve timing being a couple more of them. Also, I think it would be interesting to see GM do something like slap a turbo or two on a smaller V8 like a 4.8 and see what kind of horsepower and economy they can get out of it. I see no reason not to, personally I'm tired of getting raped at the pump, but I'm not convinced that a V8 can't get decent fuel economy while making some healthy power.

Weird that DOHC/OHC is supposed to be more efficient, but the 2v 4.6's got terrible gas mileage compared to the LS1's.

15/24 for a 4.6 M5

18/29 for a 5.7 M6

A lot of that has to do with transmission gearing.

You must be 19 years old. It more than that. If something happens to him in a non armored vehicle it can change the world as other nations might try something during the chaos. And that's just for starters.

still not seeing "not allowed." "highly recommended" maybe.

Not a fan of Obama at all (I'm a republican) but was still neat to see the president sit in it and make the comment. I guess there is an auto show in Washington now.

From the clips posted he said "this is what I needed in high school." That's not a compliment to the car at all.

still not seeing "not allowed." "highly recommended" maybe.

Judging by the way you spell I will say this, you can benefit from English 101 and also a government class. This is just, "recommended."

I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.

I believe it also depends on sales. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Simple example, if GM sells 2 Cruzes @ 40mpg and 2 Camaros at 20mpg their fleet average is 30mpg even if they produce 10 Cruzes and only 2 Camaros.

A lot of that has to do with transmission gearing.

^This. Double overdrive in the M6 GM cars helps a lot.

From the clips posted he said "this is what I needed in high school." That's not a compliment to the car at all.I do see what you're saying there but I think something like that can be taken a few different ways.
I mean, one can look at the Lamborghini Aventador or even Honda NSX while at the car shows and also say: "this is what I needed in high school" (because face it, what high school kid wouldn't love to pull up to the Thanksgiving homecoming game in a Lamborghini LOL) as well. I don't know if that automatically makes them 'high school kid' type cars LOL. ;)

I do see what you're saying there but I think something like that can be taken a few different ways.
I mean, one can look at the Lamborghini Aventador or even Honda NSX while at the car shows and also say: "this is what I needed in high school" (because face it, what high school kid wouldn't love to pull up to the Thanksgiving homecoming game in a Lamborghini LOL) as well. I don't know if that automatically makes them 'high school kid' type cars LOL. ;)

I took his comment to mean the car would only appeal to juvenile irrational people. Basically I think he's saying that this car is useful for a high school kid but adults have no business in it. Kind of like saying "yeah this would be cool....if i was 16." I know I'm kind of making a jump here but politicians speak very indirectly and everything Obama has said and done leads me to believe that at no point in his life did he want a car like a gt500.

I took his comment to mean the car would only appeal to juvenile irrational people. Basically I think he's saying that this car is useful for a high school kid but adults have no business in it. Kind of like saying "yeah this would be cool....if i was 16." I know I'm kind of making a jump here but politicians speak very indirectly and everything Obama has said and done leads me to believe that at no point in his life did he want a car like a gt500.

He used to drive a Chrysler 300 before he ran for President, so I don't see why it would be odd for him to like a Mustang. You might be overthinking it a little bit because you hate the guy so much, you can't fathom how he could like the same kind of cars we like.

He used to drive a Chrysler 300 before he ran for President, so I don't see why it would be odd for him to like a Mustang. You might be overthinking it a little bit because you hate the guy so much, you can't fathom how he could like the same kind of cars we like.

He had a base model 300 if I remember correctly. It may not have been a complete stripper car but it definitely wasn't an srt. Owning a big sedan doesn't make him an enthusiast. He pushed for and signed off on cafe which will certainly kill cars like the gt500. There is absolutely no way they can get the 50something fleet averages needed while still making anything close to the kind of performance cars they make today. So yeah I don't like the guy but even an unbiased person should see his anti performance car evidence far outweighs any one liners he said at an auto show.

He had a base model 300 if I remember correctly. It may not have been a complete stripper car but it definitely wasn't an srt. Owning a big sedan doesn't make him an enthusiast. He pushed for and signed off on cafe which will certainly kill cars like the gt500. There is absolutely no way they can get the 50something fleet averages needed while still making anything close to the kind of performance cars they make today. So yeah I don't like the guy but even an unbiased person should see his anti performance car evidence far outweighs any one liners he said at an auto show.

CAFE standards are by no means the nail in the coffin for performance cars. Even if a company doesn't meet the standards, it doesn't mean they can't sell the cars. It just means they pay a small fine. In 2006, BMW, Chrysler, VW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati all failed to meet CAFE standards, so they paid the fine for it and kept on selling the cars. Mercedes has paid CAFE fines 21 times since the 80s and BMW 20 times. It's not that big of a deal.

Personally I think CAFE standards are nonsense, if the government wants to reduce oil consumption then they should push for more clean diesel cars to be sold in the U.S. and lower the tax on diesel fuel. Pushing for every last mpg out of gas engines seems to me like it's not the way to go, if anything they should be investing in new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells instead.

And BTW, it's not just Obama who pushed for higher CAFE standards, it was President Bush who raised it to 35 mpg by 2020. When Obama raised it to 50 mpg it was with the support of a number of different car companies, so I doubt they're all that worried about it.

I'm not trying to defend the Obama Administration, I'm not exactly a fan of what they've been up to, but I just want to calm your fears about the future of performance cars. It's gonna be just fine. :)

Not a fan of Obama at all (I'm a republican) but was still neat to see the president sit in it and make the comment. I guess there is an auto show in Washington now.

that is enough to make me not want a shelby.....ever.

Yeah the whole CAFE thing is kinda give and take because the car companies get BIG kick backs from the goverment to produce cars with better mpg's so its not all bad for them since they are going to do it anyways plus most people dont realize how much heavier cars have gotten do to the fact that they have to be so ''SAFE'' and the things needed to pass the new crash testing make new cars weigh alot more than they should.

http://www.tccsa.tc/adventure/renewable_oil.pdf

http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA/Archives/27785c9915cb7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

http://www.omichron.com/renewablecrude.html

I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.Say what? Several cars that average 40mpg or better? Excuse my bad math, but which cars do that? The only one I can think of is the VOLT and then, ONLY on "electric only" use.

The only other current GM car I can even think of getting 40 or better is the new Cruze and that only sees better than 40 on the highway, not even close to averaging 40 or more.

Oh wait, the 1.4L (turbo) version of the Sonic also has a 40mpg highway rating. Either way, I wouldn't claim GM has 2 cars averaging 40 or more, let alone "several" exluding any "same car, different name" versions, anyway.

Right now, including all vehicles in GM's lineup, the economy average is probably closer to 20 than 40mpg.

Weird that DOHC/OHC is supposed to be more efficient, but the 2v 4.6's got terrible gas mileage compared to the LS1's.

15/24 for a 4.6 M5

18/29 for a 5.7 M6When the 98 Z/28 came out, the ratings were 17/28 for 6sp and 17/25 for auto. The car its in and the gearing both in the transmissions and rear have everything to do with those ratings. The 4.6L was pretty poor, but even using the current rating system(which is lower economy than in past years), the 1996 Mustang GT sees 16/24 for a combined average of 19 using the M5.

The 1998 Camaro, using this system(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1998_Chevrolet_Camaro.shtml) isn't much better... 16/25(M6). After 98, I'm sure the GT was worse, since it got a power bump.

Part of "efficiency rating" is calculated by specific output as well, but that's a debate for others.

Say what? Several cars that average 40mpg or better? Excuse my bad math, but which cars do that? The only one I can think of is the VOLT and then, ONLY on "electric only" use.

The only other current GM car I can even think of getting 40 or better is the new Cruze and that only sees better than 40 on the highway, not even close to averaging 40 or more.

Oh wait, the 1.4L (turbo) version of the Sonic also has a 40mpg highway rating. Either way, I wouldn't claim GM has 2 cars averaging 40 or more, let alone "several" exluding any "same car, different name" versions, anyway.

Right now, including all vehicles in GM's lineup, the economy average is probably closer to 20 than 40mpg..

Congratulations, you listed 3 cars that get better than 40MPG on the highway. Now if we factor in the Malibu that gets 34, the Impala that gets 30, the V6 Camaro that gets 30, the Equinox that gets 33, then you only have a couple of cars holding it back. The Camaro SS and the line of trucks, the Vette gets in the upper 20's I believe.

didn't someone already cover in another thread about how you'll not get on the street what the ratings are?

the new gt's are rated at 17/26, whereas the new camaros are rated at 16/24(both of those are 6 speed manuals)

fiesta and focus are both rated at 29/40mpg. the fusion hybrid is rated at 41/36.

does the volt top 40 only when it's on fire?

why cant he drive, i mean who is going to yell at him lol

So much hate.

I can't tell if it's hate or blind stupidity. Probably a mix of both.

I took his comment to mean the car would only appeal to juvenile irrational people. Basically I think he's saying that this car is useful for a high school kid but adults have no business in it. Kind of like saying "yeah this would be cool....if i was 16." I know I'm kind of making a jump here but politicians speak very indirectly and everything Obama has said and done leads me to believe that at no point in his life did he want a car like a gt500.

I think he was just making a joke.

This reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

why cant he drive, i mean who is going to yell at him lolI'm pretty sure it's so he doesn't get shot/killed. There is plenty of crazy people out there that would like to see him dead.

:cool:



True. And that's why I can't be president (as if that's the only reason LOL). I'd get in, go through the inauguration, get back to the White House and start the briefing process:

Staff member: "Oh and Mr President you do know that while in office you CANNOT drive a car, at all."

Me: "Ummm, wait, what?!:huh: Oooooh hell no, I'm outta here!" :scream:

:lol: :D ;)

i wouldn't have to worry about driving. someone'd shoot me on my first day. or possibly the second day, after they saw what i was doing to their pet programs....as in eliminating a shitload of the unnecessary ones. :devil:

after the jackass says we need volts and other retarded crap... he can go screw himself.

odd to see obama hocking ford when they didnt take bailout money.

he's in full campaign mode.

For the love of fucking god, you need to read the papers or at least listen to some intelligent news for once. This shit gets old, FAST.

This was even posted on LS1tech a year ago and you still missed it. FORD TOOK MONEY....PERIOD



http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/blue-ops-the-clandestine-bailout-of-ford/

Also, if you're implying the GM used gov't money to fund the Volt you are again full of shit, Lutz just wrote an article in Forbes two days ago that clearly stated the car was developed before the bailout even occurred.

until i just read that, my understanding was that ford took money in the process of selling loans to the govt.
to be honest, i'm gonna need more than some guys blog to be convinced though.
i'm also under the impression...i thought i'd read it a couple years ago.....that gm thought of bringing production of the camaro back to the usa, but chose otherwise, in order to save canadian jobs. personally, i'd have screwed the canadian jobs, and brought the camaro home where it belongs.

Congratulations, you listed 3 cars that get better than 40MPG on the highway. Now if we factor in the Malibu that gets 34, the Impala that gets 30, the V6 Camaro that gets 30, the Equinox that gets 33, then you only have a couple of cars holding it back. The Camaro SS and the line of trucks, the Vette gets in the upper 20's I believe.You're kidding, right? The entire line of full size trucks doesn't average 20mpg, period. Only 1 version could, that being the HYBRID. I did NOT list 3 cars that get better than 40mpg (highway)... I can only find 2 possibilities: VOLT(only in full electric mode) and Cruze(42)...

The highest gasoline rating for ANY GM I could find is 42mpg HIGHWAY and NONE average 40 or more overall, period. According to GM and the EPA, that is. :judge:

The point I made is, however, that you stated the average is just much higher than it really is because you didn't take into consideration a single "city economy" rating before you made the statement. I'm pretty sure the "Fleet Average" needs to be 37MPG, not every single car that they produce. Right now GM has several cars that average 40MPG or better. And they'll probably introduce the Active Fuel Management in the V8's, similar to the L76 and LS4.

You based it all on only the typically higher mileage rating and for most people, the highway doesn't really make up the majority of their fuel use.

If you call 26mpg "upper 20's," okay then...

Including all versions of GM vehicles, the overall mileage rating is apparently somewhere around 24mpg, a FAR cry from 35, let alone 40 anything.

Why would you suppose GM bought in the Cruze? The SONIC? Why would you suppose GM is bringing the Chevrolet "Spark" from Europe, other than to improve overall economy? That car is something along the lines of the M-B "SMART CAR," which isn't exactly what the entire public is seeking. It's tiny, boxy, low on everything except hype, and coming to dealerships near you in 2012! Powered by a wildly exciting 1.2L I-4 with a 5spd manual, this car is sure to set sales goals on fire nation-wide! :jest: Probably a bit better than VOLT sales.

Think these combined ratings over: Camaro V6 =22, V8 =18.5(M6/S6 =A6) using regular gas.
Volt= 37mpg(premium gas) Elec= 94
Sonic 1.8L= 28.5mpg(S6/M5) 1.4L Ecotec turbo= 33mpg(6M)
Camaro V8 with premium fuel= 15mpg (S6/M6)

The above list includes models the EPA considers "Compact" vehicles.

Using only the above models, GM's average combined rating is 35.43mpg by my crude calculations... Ya think for even a moment that if we add in all the other GM's, that average will stay at 35? Ya think it'll climb to 40 plus? No, of course you don't. The reason is, it won't do either. :judge:

Adding in just 1 "full size" model, the Impala... 3.6L auto/manual combined rating= 22mpg, regular gasoline... Factor in E85 and its 16mpg combined, things only look worse.

Add in the "mid-size" Cruze, with it's top rating of 33 combined with the massive 1.4L and we see where things are heading.

Including other GM's, like the Regal and LaCrosse, with their combined ratings(excluding eASSIST) NOT reaching 25mpg and you just might get the point! Let's not even begin to add in pickup trucks here. ;)

NOTE: I'm not saying GM overall economy is offensive, or even bad. I think it's pretty darned good considering that the government forces such nonsense for each vehicle built. "Nonsense" includes gadgets which add several hundred pounds and worse, mileage STEALING things, like emissions equipment and garbage fuels.

Still, the reality is, GM is nowhere NEAR a 40mpg average and it's not real close to 35 either. I'd honestly hope for an average of somewhere between 25 and 30, overall.

until i just read that, my understanding was that ford took money in the process of selling loans to the govt.
to be honest, i'm gonna need more than some guys blog to be convinced though.
i'm also under the impression...i thought i'd read it a couple years ago.....that gm thought of bringing production of the camaro back to the usa, but chose otherwise, in order to save canadian jobs. personally, i'd have screwed the canadian jobs, and brought the camaro home where it belongs.



The Canadian government gave money to GM also.

The Canadian government gave money to GM also.HEY... slow down a bit now. I'm stil laughing out loud that people think the meager standard loan Ford got is remotely like the bailout GM and Dodge got. It was a loan, yes. It was not a bailout loan, however, and Ford didn't have to give stock shares to the government for the amount it got because Ford evidently had enough value to back the loan in a more standard way.

Whatever though... Each company is making vehicles worth looking into.

I believe the President is allowed to drive at Camp David.

I remember seeing video of Lyndon Johnson driving around there. Also, He would get in his boat and drive away from the SS.

odd to see obama hocking ford when they didnt take bailout money.

Ford took bailout money a long time before GM did :usa:
BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?

Ford took bailout money a long time before GM did :usa:
BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?

^ Looks like someone has been paying attention. When foreign car companies were first looking to build assembly plants in America, many Southern states gave BILLIONS to them in tax breaks and other benefits in order to attract them to their states. Why not bash the foreign car companies for taking taxpayer money to build their plants? Well simple, GM auto workers are union, and the right-wing hates unions because they fund Democrats.

BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?^ Looks like someone has been paying attention. When foreign car companies were first looking to build assembly plants in America, many Southern states gave BILLIONS to them in tax breaks and other benefits in order to attract them to their states. Why not bash the foreign car companies for taking taxpayer money to build their plants?:nod:

Ford took bailout money a long time before GM did :usa:Don't just say it... show your proof. Anyone who's really and truly been paying attention already knows it wasn't a bailout like GM and Dodge got. Those two were claiming to be bankrupt and Ford was not in that position. All these companies have had loans in the past, but NEVER, did GM or Ford take a "bailout" loan till recently, when GM did. Chrysler, on the other hand, actually did take a bailout from the government, leading to the military using countless crappy Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth vehicles for nearly 2 decades. When the company has to fork over market shares, it's VERY different than showing equity valuable enough to get a loan. Had it not been for the bailout, GM and Chrysler both said they'd be bankrupt. Ford didn't do that because it was in a better position. Huge difference.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm :google::search:

BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?Instead of wasting the time to create some large post about actual facts, I'll say 2 things. #1, BMW and Toyota were not part of the "bailout" at all(it's a Congressional Bill and you can read it). #2 More importantly, most of us here aren't buying a new Toyota or BMW and their "competitive" cars are very expensive as compared to the "Big 3" offerings, so we're not really thinking of them much.

^ Looks like someone has been paying attention. When foreign car companies were first looking to build assembly plants in America, many Southern states gave BILLIONS to them in tax breaks and other benefits in order to attract them to their states. Why not bash the foreign car companies for taking taxpayer money to build their plants? Well simple, GM auto workers are union, and the right-wing hates unions because they fund Democrats.

Getting a tax break is taking taxpayer money? Hahahaha, you're just pissed because the Japanese can run their car companies better than GM. Not to mention those assembly plants create lots of jobs and revenue for the state, so giving them a tax break to attract them is quite logical.

And Ford took out loans which they will pay back. The government bought shares of GM which will never be worth enough for the taxpayers to profit, or even break even on the GM bailout, which means GM actually took taxpayer money. That's quite a bit different than a loan.

Arguing over which giant corporation took public money or not is pretty pointless. They ALL have been on the government tit at some point or another, whether it's subsidies, loans, bailouts, whatever. Capitalism in America is not the so-called "free market" that people love to think it is, it's highly subsidized by the government, hell it was taxpayer funded investment that allows us to be using computers and the Internet right now.

If people are so concerned about businesses taking taxpayer dollars then among other things they'll have to stop buying gas (oil subsidies) and stop buying food (farm subsidies). Good luck with that boycott, I imagine it'll last until the next time you're hungry and go drive to get food.

Getting a tax break is taking taxpayer money? Hahahaha, you're just pissed because the Japanese can run their car companies better than GM. Not to mention those assembly plants create lots of jobs and revenue for the state, so giving them a tax break to attract them is quite logical.

And Ford took out loans which they will pay back. The government bought shares of GM which will never be worth enough for the taxpayers to profit, or even break even on the GM bailout, which means GM actually took taxpayer money. That's quite a bit different than a loan.

A tax break is more money in your pocket, less money in the government's pocket. Fiscally it is identical to a welfare payment, we just don't call it welfare because... well that's what poor people get right?

I'm not out to defend GM and bash the Japanese. GM was mismanaged for a long time no doubt about that. But in your criticism of GM, you need to be fair. Part of the reason GM went broke was paying for health care and retirement. Auto workers in Germany and Japan have their health care paid for by their governments, which takes a huge burden off of the businesses. In addition they fewer retired workers to pay pensions too.

And as far as the states giving tax breaks in order to create jobs and generate revenue, yes it absolutely makes sense. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, to the contrary, it's the right thing to do. But let's not pretend that GM and Chrysler are Obama's evil socialized car companies and Ford and the foreign companies are perfectly fine capitalist enterprises.

Not to mention those assembly plants create lots of jobs and revenue for the state, so giving them a tax break to attract them is quite logical.True.


The government bought shares of GM which will never be worth enough for the taxpayers to profit, or even break even on the GM bailout, which means GM actually took taxpayer money.Which also saved (and more recently, even created) lots of jobs as well, let's not overlook that part.
Employed people increase tax dollars. Unemployed people drain tax dollars.

A tax break is more money in your pocket, less money in the government's pocket. Fiscally it is identical to a welfare payment, we just don't call it welfare because... well that's what poor people get right?
so, because they didnt have to pay a certain amount, they were taking money from us? youre probably one of those types that believe taxing people less = spending..
I'm not out to defend GM and bash the Japanese. GM was mismanaged for a long time no doubt about that. But in your criticism of GM, you need to be fair. the govt took chrysler from a firm, and gave it to fiat. THEN they gave the UAW a large chunk of the company while violation contractual law and screwing of share holders
Part of the reason GM went broke was paying for health care and retirement. Auto workers in Germany and Japan have their health care paid for by their governments, which takes a huge burden off of the businesses. In addition they fewer retired workers to pay pensions too.where, pray tell do you think the germans and japanese health care systems get their money? oh, and how is japans economy doing even without the tsunami/earthquake?

And as far as the states giving tax breaks in order to create jobs and generate revenue, yes it absolutely makes sense. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, to the contrary, it's the right thing to do. But let's not pretend that GM and Chrysler are Obama's evil socialized car companies and Ford and the foreign companies are perfectly fine capitalist enterprises.
companies rise and fall based on the merits of the products and services they provide. on top of that, those who bought into the company take precedent over those who havent by contract. our entire economic system was built on that. well, that is unless obama is in charge.

a majority of the 787 billion dollar stimulus law went largely to european companies and banks. so far, the US govt (taxpayers) is out billions because of gm. chrysler not doing much better.

the moral of the story? keynesian economics is a failed and flat wrong theory. FDR proved it and now obama is proving it.

the moral of the story? keynesian economics is a failed and flat wrong theory. FDR proved it and now obama is proving it.Agreed.

But now, exactly which 'economic theories' do work? If you've got it all figured out I'd really like to know because if any of the practices utilized up until this point had actually worked so much better 1) why would anyone have tried something different/strayed from it? And 2) How did things get so bad after following that 'perfect' path or 'unflawed' system if it actually worked so well/properly in the first place?:huh:

Agreed.

But now, exactly which 'economic theories' do work? If you've got it all figured out I'd really like to know because if any of the practices utilized up until this point had actually worked so much better 1) why would anyone have tried something different/strayed from it? And 2) How did things get so bad after following that 'perfect' path or 'unflawed' system if it actually worked so well/properly in the first place?:huh:Capitalism and the "free market" work(see China). The only reason they're not working for America now is because they've been hi-jacked and instead of allowing failure to take place where failure actually is, our government has decided it's more intelligent than the buying public about that which the buying public wants to ... buy... With that, they FORCED us to pay for those entities they want to succeed. Now our economy is trying to recover, but "we, the people" who make up that economy are half-afraid to make big money purchases, being convinced "uncle sam" will steal away whatever it can, of ours.

Not everyone gets rich with a free market, but far fewer stay poor.

so, because they didnt have to pay a certain amount, they were taking money from us? youre probably one of those types that believe taxing people less = spending..

The whole tax code is FULL of welfare for lots of different groups. That's why it's so full of subsidies and loopholes. If a company doesn't have to pay $5,000 in taxes because of a loophole they lobbied to have put in, that's the same thing as the Treasury cutting them a check for $5,000. Some or the biggest corporations like GE pay nothing in taxes and actually get a refund! The whole tax code was written by special interests with armies of lobbyists and lawyers.

the govt took chrysler from a firm, and gave it to fiat. THEN they gave the UAW a large chunk of the company while violation contractual law and screwing of share holders

That's American state-run capitalism for you, but this has been happening for a long time, it isn't something Obama invented. Bush basically socialized the entire banking system, but it's strange I haven't heard many people referring to "Government Sachs."

where, pray tell do you think the germans and japanese health care systems get their money? oh, and how is japans economy doing even without the tsunami/earthquake?

Umm... the same place the U.S. government gets its money to run the health care system.

As far as Japan's economy is going, I would imagine they're still in the process of rebuilding. I do know they're one of the largest holders of U.S. debt, owning nearly as much as China.

companies rise and fall based on the merits of the products and services they provide. on top of that, those who bought into the company take precedent over those who havent by contract. our entire economic system was built on that. well, that is unless obama is in charge.

All throughout history the government has had a substantial role in intervening in the economy, granting monopolies and so on. I know a lot of people have been told that up until Obama, we were good capitalists, and now he's made us into the Soviet Union. Well you can think that if you'd like, but it's not historically true. We've always had a state-run economy pretty much right from the start.

a majority of the 787 billion dollar stimulus law went largely to european companies and banks. so far, the US govt (taxpayers) is out billions because of gm. chrysler not doing much better.

GM and Chrysler will more than pay back the bailout money in the form of a healthy auto industry that employs a lot of people. It's the same principle as giving tax breaks to companies looking to build plants. We spend money/give tax breaks (same thing fiscally) to create jobs and increase revenue down the road.

the moral of the story? keynesian economics is a failed and flat wrong theory. FDR proved it and now obama is proving it.

Every U.S. administration in modern history believed in Keynesian economics, Reagan being one of the biggest ones. But you're right that Keynesianism is a failure, I believe we need to look more towards the current German model, they have one of the strongest economies in the world.

Capitalism and the "free market" work(see China). The only reason they're not working for America now is because they've been hi-jacked and instead of allowing failure to take place where failure actually is, our government has decided it's more intelligent than the buying public about that which the buying public wants to ... buy... With that, they FORCED us to pay for those entities they want to succeed. Now our economy is trying to recover, but "we, the people" who make up that economy are half-afraid to make big money purchases, being convinced "uncle sam" will steal away whatever it can, of ours.

Not everyone gets rich with a free market, but far fewer stay poor.

America never had a free market. Right from the beginning we rejected free trade and enacted protectionist policies. This is a myth that America was built on free markets. The British had a free market system that we rejected in favor of economic nationalism.

GM and Chrysler will more than pay back the bailout money in the form of a healthy auto industry that employs a lot of people. It's the same principle as giving tax breaks to companies looking to build plants. We spend money/give tax breaks (same thing fiscally) to create jobs and increase revenue down the road.............. ^ this ^

America never had a free market. Right from the beginning we rejected free trade and enacted protectionist policies. This is a myth that America was built on free markets. The British had a free market system that we rejected in favor of economic nationalism.I think they changed the history books since I was in skrewel...

Every U.S. administration in modern history believed in Keynesian economics, Reagan being one of the biggest ones. But you're right that Keynesianism is a failure, I believe we need to look more towards the current German model, they have one of the strongest economies in the world.WOW! My gals mom is directly from there and she claims it's outright socialism... She also says America should follow suit and become socialist. She thinks it will make her life easier. I told her we're already there, but it doesn't look like it since America is so much larger than Germany. I think she can go back home. She's better at German anyway. :nod:

America still has the strongest economy in the world. Why step backward to "one of' instead of maintaining "the?" Just curious....

I think they changed the history books since I was in skrewel...

Nah, they're still full of the same propaganda. My rule of thumb is I don't believe a word the government tells me.

WOW! My gals mom is directly from there and she claims it's outright socialism... She also says America should follow suit and become socialist. She thinks it will make her life easier. I told her we're already there, but it doesn't look like it since America is so much larger than Germany. I think she can go back home. She's better at German anyway. :nod:

America still has the strongest economy in the world. Why step backward to "one of' instead of maintaining "the?" Just curious....

She must not know what socialism is then. German businesses are run by private owners, not the workers. Yes the unions wield a significant amount of power, but industries are still based on wage labor and private ownership of the means of production.

America has the strongest economy but that doesn't necessarily translate into high standards of living. Just look at China, they have the second strongest economy but the average workers live like slaves. Look at Germany though - their auto workers make TWICE as much as U.S. auto workers and German car companies sold twice as many cars as we did in 2010.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

Nah, they're still full of the same propaganda. My rule of thumb is I don't believe a word the government tells me.When I went, the government didn't actually write them... Guess things have changed. :D

She must not know what socialism is then. German businesses are run by private owners, not the workers. Yes the unions wield a significant amount of power, but industries are still based on wage labor and private ownership of the means of production.I may seem crazy to say this, but I honestly believe an actual German citizen knows more about Germany than we Americans. No schooling required.

America has the strongest economy but that doesn't necessarily translate into high standards of living. Just look at China, they have the second strongest economy but the average workers live like slaves. Look at Germany though - their auto workers make TWICE as much as U.S. auto workers and German car companies sold twice as many cars as we did in 2010.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/For me, it's not about "a fair wage for everyone" because... well, not everyone works the same. Most people aren't worth top dollar and never will be. I think unionization is a farce in America anymore, used only as a tool to take, not to give.

China will surpass America soon, at these rates. Their standard of living goes up all the time. Just 20yrs ago(maybe even 10 or less), most Chinese people had no realistic ideas they'd ever own a car. Today, they buy more than Americans... for example.

Just because a German auto worker makes roughly double what the American auto worker makes, doesn't provide adequate reason for American businesses to make like their German counterpart by doubling pay. The biggest difference which makes a difference is the simple reality, America has roughly 4 times the people and therefore requires more "spreading of the wealth" than does Germany. What may work great for them may not work at all for us.

If they build more vehicles, by roughly twice the amount, using a smaller labor force... They deserve more pay. I see no problem with that, but in no way do I think our labor force should have a pay increase because people earn more in some other country. We don't "deserve" just because we breathe or work. We "deserve" when we earn.

When I went, the government didn't actually write them... Guess things have changed. :D

The books are published by private companies contracted by the government.

I may seem crazy to say this, but I honestly believe an actual German citizen knows more about Germany than we Americans. No schooling required.

Okay until she explains to you how private ownership, management control, and wage labor is the same thing as collective ownership and worker control then it's still not socialism. I guess in Germany they have completely distorted the term socialism just like we have in this country. They must have forgotten that East Germany collapsed and it was West Germany that prevailed... you know when the Berlin Wall came down... oh never mind.

For me, it's not about "a fair wage for everyone" because... well, not everyone works the same. Most people aren't worth top dollar and never will be. I think unionization is a farce in America anymore, used only as a tool to take, not to give.

Well who decides what's a fair wage, your boss? If he could, your boss would pay you nothing. In fact that's how work was done all throughout history... it was called serfdom.

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

The reason why have weekends is unions. The reason we have 40 hour work weeks is unions. The reason we have health care benefits is unions. The reason we have overtime is unions. The reason we have safety standards is unions. And so on and so on. If it weren't for unions we would still be working in conditions like the employees at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory when 146 workers died in a fire because management would lock the doors.

China will surpass America soon, at these rates. Their standard of living goes up all the time. Just 20yrs ago(maybe even 10 or less), most Chinese people had no realistic ideas they'd ever own a car. Today, they buy more than Americans... for example.

The standards are going up for some, and not others. The average worker in manufacturing still works in sweatshop conditions. Foxconn's factory in China that makes Apple products has recently been investigated after 7 workers committed suicide.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation

Just because a German auto worker makes roughly double what the American auto worker makes, doesn't provide adequate reason for American businesses to make like their German counterpart by doubling pay. The biggest difference which makes a difference is the simple reality, America has roughly 4 times the people and therefore requires more "spreading of the wealth" than does Germany. What may work great for them may not work at all for us.

If they build more vehicles, by roughly twice the amount, using a smaller labor force... They deserve more pay. I see no problem with that, but in no way do I think our labor force should have a pay increase because people earn more in some other country. We don't "deserve" just because we breathe or work. We "deserve" when we earn.

The American worker is the most productive in the world.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C295556%2C00.html

America is also the richest country on Earth. Something's not adding up, we have the most money, and the best workers... why aren't we getting the highest pay? I think all you have to do is look at one figure to see why:

http://rogerhollander.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/314096_174078536008002_171089306306925_367115_6504 89110_n.jpg?w=460

America is also the richest country on Earth. Something's not adding up, we have the most money, and the best workers... why aren't we getting the highest pay? I think all you have to do is look at one figure to see why:

http://rogerhollander.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/314096_174078536008002_171089306306925_367115_6504 89110_n.jpg?w=460

Wouldn't make a huge difference.

Let's assume avaerage worker at Company A makes $50,000

Use the German CEO pay $600,000

USA CEO Pay = $23,750,000

23,750,000 - 600,000 = $23,150,000

Assume 15,000 workers at a major corporation (Auto are closer to 30,000 i think)

23,150,000/15,000 = $1,543.33 per worker *.7 (taxes, healthcare, etc) = $1,080.33/24 = $45.01 per pay period.

Nice, but not going to shake the pillars of economics.

Wouldn't make a huge difference.

Let's assume avaerage worker at Company A makes $50,000

Use the German CEO pay $600,000

USA CEO Pay = $23,750,000

23,750,000 - 600,000 = $23,150,000

Assume 15,000 workers at a major corporation (Auto are closer to 30,000 i think)

23,150,000/15,000 = $1,543.33 per worker *.7 (taxes, healthcare, etc) = $1,080.33/24 = $45.01 per pay period.

Nice, but not going to shake the pillars of economics.

Then factor in all the other bureaucrats in upper management that make off like bandits, and the massive profits that get divided up among the shareholders rather than the workers. Then we'll see some of that wealth "trickle down."

The books are published by private companies contracted by the government.

Okay until she explains to you how private ownership, management control, and wage labor is the same thing as collective ownership and worker control then it's still not socialism. I guess in Germany they have completely distorted the term socialism just like we have in this country. They must have forgotten that East Germany collapsed and it was West Germany that prevailed... you know when the Berlin Wall came down... oh never mind.

Well who decides what's a fair wage, your boss? If he could, your boss would pay you nothing. In fact that's how work was done all throughout history... it was called serfdom.

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

The standards are going up for some, and not others. The average worker in manufacturing still works in sweatshop conditions. Foxconn's factory in China that makes Apple products has recently been investigated after 7 workers committed suicide.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation

The American worker is the most productive in the world.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C295556%2C00.html

America is also the richest country on Earth. Something's not adding up, we have the most money, and the best workers... why aren't we getting the highest pay? I think all you have to do is look at one figure to see why:

http://rogerhollander.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/314096_174078536008002_171089306306925_367115_6504 89110_n.jpg?w=460
I get it... you want America to become a totally socialist country.

It's funny though, that you'd argue against a German person, probably never having even visited, let alone lived in Germany yourself, and be completely fooled into thinking you've got it right and they're wrong... Love it! :D

Sprechen sie deutsch? If so, please use that to explain, as American English is still a bit rough on her. ;) I'm sure she's simply misunderstood for her entire life, as have about 80,000,000 other German citizens... :eyes:

The reason why have weekends is unions. The reason we have 40 hour work weeks is unions. The reason we have health care benefits is unions. The reason we have overtime is unions. The reason we have safety standards is unions. And so on and so on. If it weren't for unions we would still be working in conditions like the employees at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory when 146 workers died in a fire because management would lock the doors.Had to separate this nonsense from the rest, just because it made me laugh...

First off, we had weekends AND overtime AND healthcare benefits long before the 1st union ever took hold anywhere in the world. Saturday and Sunday have been clearly marked on calenders for thousands of years... We've had doctors and benefited from their care for ages whereas our 1st union is but roughly 140yrs old. Americans typically worked much longer and therefore, got many overtime hours well before anyone made a union... They didn't get paid more, but they worked! :D

Now then, I've said many times, much to the chagrin of several younger union supporters... Unions DID have their place and time in America. Today, however, they are a terrible organization in nearly every work related form. Now that we HAVE employer provided healthcare(which is no big deal, thanks to Obummer and company), we don't need unions for it ever again. Now that it's LAW to be paid OT, we don't need any union thug to enforce a rule. Now that most Americans are back to working weekends, it doesn't matter that most folks ever had them off.

The problem unions created is simple... They BEG TOO MUCH and with that, someone ELSE has to pay, but NEVER the union... That's crap and it's well beyond time for Americans to understand... Nothing is free, boneheads! No matter what the dummy at the union meeting says, someone pays for all your freebies! Union members typically just don't care about that, just as long as they aren't the poor schmuck footing the bill. A little history, since most union supporters have no clue:

In 1913, the U.S. government established the Department of Labor, specifically to oversee things like fair wages. This is the act that gave workers rights. Unions played NO active role.

In 1914, non-violent strikes were legalized in America.

In 1935, the Wagner Act affirmed the rights of workers to unionize and forced employers to participate in collective bargaining.

In 1937, the UAW reached agreement with GM.

1938, Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees minimum wage, without union intervention.

1959, Landrum-Griffin Act passes, in direct effort to curb union corruption.

One other thing on unions. We've known unions to promote socialism since 1905... Why do union members wonder about their memberships falling off?? Oh yeah... not helping overall.

Finally, anyone who needs a union to avoid working for free is an idiot who doesn't deserve the help in the 1st place. Anyone who thinks that was what happened throughout history as anything resembling a rule, as opposed to slavery, is also an idiot, incapable of using logic. America is too big to be successfully "run like Germany," or almost any other country in the world.

May be relevant: have you guys read about the Goldman Sachs exec that quit recently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/brokerage/story/2012-03-14/goldman-sachs-exec-resignation/53524744/1

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/14/markets/goldman_sachs/?npt=NP1

I just had to chime in and say that from my viewpoint most germans don't recognize their country as socialist, especially those in the former parts of East Germany.

I get it... you want America to become a totally socialist country.


https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzO_j2OOL1XIt5vTkI_nJxOTt4T0xpC okwGdEYbkysxx1zayTT2w

I just had to chime in and say that from my viewpoint most germans don't recognize their country as socialist, especially those in the former parts of East Germany.


Most Americans don't either, don't let the rednecks skew your view of how most people feel about Germany and the rest of Europe. We can barely get 10 day vacations a year, healthcare is a joke that will bankrupt anyone caught in it's tracks, public transportation is laughable, and all the while "job creators" that are not currently creating much of anything get the biggest tax breaks, buy out our government, and then declare class warfare when someone mentions that while a normal person pays 30% or so in taxes, you have multi-millionaires (for example one man worth 250 million) pay 15% in taxes, and some of the most major companies paying nothing in taxes that continue to lobby for bigger perks.

The whole top down economics idea, so a corporation gets a tax break that's paid for by the rest of us, they're going to hire more people and do exactly what with them when demand remains the same? Let them take a stroll and have some rest and relaxation 8 hours a day? On the flip side, if the tax code was actually leveled off, average Joe had more money in his/her pocket that actually gets spent and not just hidden oversee's somewhere, then maybe the "job creators" would have a reason and motivation to hire, because business is good.

I just had to chime in and say that from my viewpoint most germans don't recognize their country as socialist, especially those in the former parts of East Germany.Do those in the east think it's still communism? My gals mom(Sabine) didn't think it was socialism herself, till she came to America. Now she just bitches incessantly about what she's NOT being handed. It gets old fast. "You know, in Germany our public toilets ah cleana. Dey have da self-cleaning and we should have dat in Amadica."

"You know, in Germany we half da autobahn and it is vede vede smoove, not like wodes in Amadica."

I say, what about NON Autobahn roads and while you're explaining that, how about I buy you a plane ticket home? Then she tells me about why "De Amadican gov't won't allow me to go back." It's nonsense, of course. She's like millions of other immigrants to America anymore. They want us to CONFORM to their ways rather than them conforming to ours.

I get it... you want America to become a totally socialist country.

Yeah yeah I'm a socialist, and you're a fascist. Where does this get us?

It's funny though, that you'd argue against a German person, probably never having even visited, let alone lived in Germany yourself, and be completely fooled into thinking you've got it right and they're wrong... Love it! :D

Sprechen sie deutsch? If so, please use that to explain, as American English is still a bit rough on her. ;) I'm sure she's simply misunderstood for her entire life, as have about 80,000,000 other German citizens... :eyes:

Please explain to me how the fact that Volkswagan, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are privately owned enterprises is "socialism." By definition it's not. Socialism would be if German companies were owned by the state and controlled by the workers.

First off, we had weekends AND overtime AND healthcare benefits long before the 1st union ever took hold anywhere in the world. Saturday and Sunday have been clearly marked on calenders for thousands of years...

Weekends off, overtime pay, and health benefits were all things unions had to fight for. They weren't gifts by management.

We've had doctors and benefited from their care for ages whereas our 1st union is but roughly 140yrs old.

Really unions are only 140 years old?? Unions first started forming in America in the late 18th century. That would make them a little more than 140 years old.

Americans typically worked much longer and therefore, got many overtime hours well before anyone made a union... They didn't get paid more, but they worked! :D

Right, they didn't get paid more. That's something unions fought for.

Now then, I've said many times, much to the chagrin of several younger union supporters... Unions DID have their place and time in America. Today, however, they are a terrible organization in nearly every work related form. Now that we HAVE employer provided healthcare(which is no big deal, thanks to Obummer and company), we don't need unions for it ever again. Now that it's LAW to be paid OT, we don't need any union thug to enforce a rule. Now that most Americans are back to working weekends, it doesn't matter that most folks ever had them off.

Right, "union thugs" are the problem. Corporate thugs though, they're just fine.

The problem unions created is simple... They BEG TOO MUCH and with that, someone ELSE has to pay, but NEVER the union... That's crap and it's well beyond time for Americans to understand... Nothing is free, boneheads! No matter what the dummy at the union meeting says, someone pays for all your freebies! Union members typically just don't care about that, just as long as they aren't the poor schmuck footing the bill. A little history, since most union supporters have no clue:

How dare unions ask for more!! That's something only management can do! And if you don't think unions give up a lot in their negotiations... then I dunno what to say. Yes you're right that nothing's free. But try telling that to the managers who want you to work your ass off and pay you next to nothing.

One other thing on unions. We've known unions to promote socialism since 1905... Why do union members wonder about their memberships falling off?? Oh yeah... not helping overall.

Union membership is falling off because management has been beating it out of our heads. At my current job they force all the employees to watch anti-union propaganda, have a talk with the general manager, and then they send more anti-union spam to my home.

And as union membership has declined, so has working class wages.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/unionincome.jpg

Very predictably.

Finally, anyone who needs a union to avoid working for free is an idiot who doesn't deserve the help in the 1st place. Anyone who thinks that was what happened throughout history as anything resembling a rule, as opposed to slavery, is also an idiot, incapable of using logic. America is too big to be successfully "run like Germany," or almost any other country in the world.

Of course it's not necessary to join a union to avoid becoming a slave. My point was that management wants to pay you as little as they can get away with, which is why American auto workers employeed by German companies make a fraction of the amount Germans make to do the same job. That's also why they spend huge sums of money lobbying in Congress against raising the minimum wage.

And since when is America too big? Corporations are GLOBAL in scale, wielding enormous political power, employing hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of people (Walmart has over 2 million employees!), and holding huge amounts of capital. If you think America is too big to run properly then these corporations are WAY too big to be run successfully.

Then factor in all the other bureaucrats in upper management that make off like bandits, and the massive profits that get divided up among the shareholders rather than the workers. Then we'll see some of that wealth "trickle down."

Shareholders own the company. It really is their money, as it is their invested dollar at risk.

normal person pays 30% or so in taxes, you have multi-millionaires (for example one man worth 250 million) pay 15% in taxes,

You find this becasue most of those people make the majority of their income of investments.

If you make (let's assume) $1,000,000 from a job and bring home $650,000 after paying 35% tax (making the numbers easy, not going to do the tax bands), and invest large amounts of it, your eventually going to have and investment portfolio that returns a significant sum. However those profits will be re-taxed at 15% for capital gains.

In the case of the very wealthy they have just tipped the balance to the Capital Gains side of the equation. Their investemnt income is outstripping their salary from a job. However, all the funds used for investment was at one time taxed as regular income. They are not playing some game where said CEO (for example) is getting 15% pulled from his check while you get dinged at 30%

Take the same person as above and assume they make $5,000,000 per year from investments. They will pay.

$1,000,000 x .35 = $350,000
$5,000,000 x .15 = $750,000 (<= Funds already taxed once at 35%)

$1,100,000/6,000,000 = 18.33%

Yeah yeah I'm a socialist, and you're a fascist. Where does this get us?It gets us a wasted nation. Think this through...

Dating back to the 1930's, fascists are socialists. I'm guessing most union members don't know this.

Btw, did I call you a socialist?

Please explain to me how the fact that Volkswagan, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are privately owned enterprises is "socialism." By definition it's not. Socialism would be if German companies were owned by the state and controlled by the workers.We could end the discussion right here, based on you having proven you don't even comprehend what socialism is yet.

Also, I wouldn't think that any company traded publicly also qualifies as privately owned.

Weekends off, overtime pay, and health benefits were all things unions had to fight for. They weren't gifts by management.No they aren't things unions had to fight for. That's where so many union supporters get confused... The "that's mine" mindset... Unions chose to advocate for weekends off. There was no rule saying weekends must be worked and, since you obviously didn't know, Sundays were typically not worked, since the beginning of America. Sheesh...

Really unions are only 140 years old?? Unions first started forming in America in the late 18th century. That would make them a little more than 140 years old.I won't argue this too much. It's known to many, the "Knights of Labor" was essentially the 1st union with any power. They came about in the 1860's.

Right, they didn't get paid more. That's something unions fought for.Yeah, because it's obvious the employees themselves are too stupid... :eyes:

Problem is, thanks to unions, America has lost possibly millions of jobs. Unions push for this and that, then the company pulls stakes and throws up its tent in some other country, leaving behind the massive losses to unions(and our wonderful government regulations).

Right, "union thugs" are the problem. Corporate thugs though, they're just fine.They have been and, as recently as last year, union thugs caused thousands of dollars in damage to a rail yard when the union didn't get "1st dibs" on the work. Corporate thugs don't threaten physical violence or purposely ruin or damage company property. Corporate thugs don't stand in the way of non-union workers going to work. It gets worse, still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQjnPhIvDo (and read some of the responses from union supporters. It takes merely seconds to see who actually is uneducated, as opposed to what the union thugs say over megaphone.
http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/03/union-thugs-attack-petition-worker-destroys-petitions/ another article about the fine union thuggery in America today. This one from Chicago, known for corruption only the likes of New Orleans can rival in America.
http://shaunkenney.com/2011/02/union-thugs-attack-tabitha-hale/
http://rebelpundit.com/2011/08/militant-seiu-union-thugs-attack-shopping-mall-security-guards-in-san-francisco/
http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-25/news/24963634_1_bat-attack-king-of-prussia-mall-construction-site (article only)
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
Most of those videos/stories happened within the past year or 14months. It's proof positive that union thugs are indeed the problem, as compared to corporate 'thugs' causing damage and willfully breaking laws.

This type of thing is all too common among union members and progressives alike. With that, the normal, decent citizen has no reason to join a union, but plenty of reason not to join.


How dare unions ask for more!!It's not that they ask, but they demand more and strike when they don't get their way. It's like a massive group of 3yr olds having a temper tantrum. It's not enough for unions members to already get better pay than the average non-union worker by thousands per year in many cases. It's not enough they get free or nearly free health coverage. It's not enough they get more paid time off than the typical American worker. It's not enough that they are less productive than their non-union counterpart. No, they need more. They need to know that the corporate thug is going to be in their pay range, or they just won't be happy.

That's something only management can do!When is the last time you heard management ask for more?

And if you don't think unions give up a lot in their negotiations... then I dunno what to say. Yes you're right that nothing's free. But try telling that to the managers who want you to work your ass off and pay you next to nothing.Here's "what to say"... tell us what they've given up! I've been in the union environment and out of it. Without question, non-union workers typically out-produce union workers in their day to day activities. That's one of the biggest reasons unions "fight so hard" during negotiations. 40hour weeks??? Well, maybe, but many union workers work less and get paid for 40. There are still hundreds, if not thousands getting a paycheck and not even going in to work!

Considering only about 12% of Americans are in unions, it's kinda hard to explain away all the disparities between them and the majority. It isn't like we don't learn what's going on.

Union membership is falling off because management has been beating it out of our heads. At my current job they force all the employees to watch anti-union propaganda, have a talk with the general manager, and then they send more anti-union spam to my home.Good for them being intelligent enough to know that all can be better off is the few weren't given so much for so little in return. You blame management. I blame management and unions.

And as union membership has declined, so has working class wages.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/unionincome.jpg

Very predictably.Of course... This can't possibly have anything to do with a poor economy! This can't possibly be due to so many people losing their jobs and taking less pay than they used to just so they can feed their families. Union members typically can't grasp the reality, when the money isn't there, nobody can take it with them! Unions protect even bad workers(millions of them). That costs the employees money and they feel it's paid for, so fight for it. I'd agree, if not for the fact so many millions of Americans "do without" because of unions. Those people who can't find a job because they can't afford the gasoline, let alone the car to go looking. Offer them "protection" too and we'll see a total collapse of America.

The real problem, creating the graph you showed is 1 thing. LACK of production in America. Unions demanded so much, American manufacturing companies have been disappearing for 40 years. They'll be in other countries, paying a lower wage... to people willing to work without demanding the company wipe their butt after taking a dump on company time!

Of course it's not necessary to join a union to avoid becoming a slave.There are places where the law requires employees to join a union, however. Otherwise, they can't have that "dream job" they've waited for. You won't find that problem in any "right to work" state.

My point was that management wants to pay you as little as they can get away with, which is why American auto workers employeed by German companies make a fraction of the amount Germans make to do the same job. That's also why they spend huge sums of money lobbying in Congress against raising the minimum wage.Now just tell me you'd gladly pay the roofer double what he quotes, just to have the happy mindset that he's worth it... Have you ever doubled the payment owed for any work someone else did for you? No? Then why on earth should you be paid double, just because the German auto worker earns double what a UAW worker gets paid? That German worker is doubling your output. He should earn double your pay! You said it yourself, German companies produced more than double what American workers did, according to the story you presented.

And since when is America too big? Corporations are GLOBAL in scale, wielding enormous political power, employing hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of people (Walmart has over 2 million employees!), and holding huge amounts of capital. If you think America is too big to run properly then these corporations are WAY too big to be run successfully.America isn't too big to be run properly. It's too big to be run in socialist fashion. It's too big for Congress to "manage" effectively... If you think not, explain to yourself why we're in the mess we're in...

Dating back to the 1930's, fascists are socialists. I'm guessing most union members don't know this.

I'm sorry but you have NO idea what socialism actually is. If you think the Nazis were socialists then you just have no clue. Fascism was corporatism, which is nothing like socialism. The Nazis threw socialists in the camps.

We could end the discussion right here, based on you having proven you don't even comprehend what socialism is yet.

I'm not the one who just said the Nazis were socialists.

Also, I wouldn't think that any company traded publicly also qualifies as privately owned.

They're not owned by the state - so it's private enterprise. Yes they're traded publicly but that has nothing to do with socialism.

No they aren't things unions had to fight for. That's where so many union supporters get confused... The "that's mine" mindset... Unions chose to advocate for weekends off. There was no rule saying weekends must be worked and, since you obviously didn't know, Sundays were typically not worked, since the beginning of America. Sheesh...

You act like if unions hadn't existed that management would have eventually gotten around to giving health benefits and overtime just "out of the goodness of their heart." There were a lot of union members who were KILLED fighting for things we all take for granted now, like safety standards and an end to child labor.

I won't argue this too much. It's known to many, the "Knights of Labor" was essentially the 1st union with any power. They came about in the 1860's.

Workers were organizing before the Knights of Labor was formed.

Yeah, because it's obvious the employees themselves are too stupid... :eyes:

The unions ARE the employees. They stand a much better chance if they're organized than fighting individually.

Problem is, thanks to unions, America has lost possibly millions of jobs. Unions push for this and that, then the company pulls stakes and throws up its tent in some other country, leaving behind the massive losses to unions(and our wonderful government regulations).

No, thanks to corrupt GOVERNMENT that does free trade agreements at the behest of big business so all the jobs can go to China and Mexico. Even if we didn't have unions, the jobs would STILL get outsourced, because workers in China are damn near slaves, plus their currency is being manipulated to give them an even bigger unfair advantage.

They have been and, as recently as last year, union thugs caused thousands of dollars in damage to a rail yard when the union didn't get "1st dibs" on the work. Corporate thugs don't threaten physical violence or purposely ruin or damage company property. Corporate thugs don't stand in the way of non-union workers going to work. It gets worse, still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQjnPhIvDo (and read some of the responses from union supporters. It takes merely seconds to see who actually is uneducated, as opposed to what the union thugs say over megaphone.
http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/03/union-thugs-attack-petition-worker-destroys-petitions/ another article about the fine union thuggery in America today. This one from Chicago, known for corruption only the likes of New Orleans can rival in America.
http://shaunkenney.com/2011/02/union-thugs-attack-tabitha-hale/
http://rebelpundit.com/2011/08/militant-seiu-union-thugs-attack-shopping-mall-security-guards-in-san-francisco/
http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-25/news/24963634_1_bat-attack-king-of-prussia-mall-construction-site (article only)
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
Most of those videos/stories happened within the past year or 14months. It's proof positive that union thugs are indeed the problem, as compared to corporate 'thugs' causing damage and willfully breaking laws.

By "corporate thugs" I was referring more to these guys...

http://www.prlog.org/10688251-cops-in-riot-gear.jpg

Our government serves corporate interests, not the interests of the people. Why do you think the NYPD has gotten millions of dollars in donations from JP Morgan Chase? You work for who pays you, right?

This type of thing is all too common among union members and progressives alike. With that, the normal, decent citizen has no reason to join a union, but plenty of reason not to join.

I know plenty of people who work/have worked union jobs and they're not fucking thugs. They're regular working class people who just want a god damn fair wage.

It's not that they ask, but they demand more and strike when they don't get their way. It's like a massive group of 3yr olds having a temper tantrum.

You act like unions just need to "ask politely" for what they want. Are you kidding me? And going on strike isn't a "tempter tantrum," what IS a temper tantrum is when management threatens to outsource to China because they're tired of not having slave labor to exploit!!

It's not enough for unions members to already get better pay than the average non-union worker by thousands per year in many cases. It's not enough they get free or nearly free health coverage. It's not enough they get more paid time off than the typical American worker. It's not enough that they are less productive than their non-union counterpart. No, they need more. They need to know that the corporate thug is going to be in their pay range, or they just won't be happy.

No it's not enough, because American workers are the most productive in the world, and get some of the shittiest pay compared to other developed countries.

When is the last time you heard management ask for more?

Management doesn't ask for more, they say "do this or you're fired."

Here's "what to say"... tell us what they've given up! I've been in the union environment and out of it.

You act like here's what happens in a negotiation:

Union: YOU WILL GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT OR ELSE!!! *wielding baseball bat*
Management: Yes sir! Absolutely sir! Just don't hurt me! *cowering*

^ That's not a negotiation.

Without question, non-union workers typically out-produce union workers in their day to day activities.

No proof of that. It's just your opinion.

But I can make up stuff too - management in non-union environments are lazier than management in union environments. I have no proof that's true but it's my hunch.

Of course... This can't possibly have anything to do with a poor economy! This can't possibly be due to so many people losing their jobs and taking less pay than they used to just so they can feed their families. Union members typically can't grasp the reality, when the money isn't there, nobody can take it with them! Unions protect even bad workers(millions of them). That costs the employees money and they feel it's paid for, so fight for it. I'd agree, if not for the fact so many millions of Americans "do without" because of unions. Those people who can't find a job because they can't afford the gasoline, let alone the car to go looking. Offer them "protection" too and we'll see a total collapse of America.

The economy wasn't bad from 1967 all the way through 2007. There was plenty of money to go around. It all went to the top.

The real problem, creating the graph you showed is 1 thing. LACK of production in America. Unions demanded so much, American manufacturing companies have been disappearing for 40 years. They'll be in other countries, paying a lower wage... to people willing to work without demanding the company wipe their butt after taking a dump on company time!

The jobs are disappearing because people in Mexico and China work for less than the U.S. minimum wage, their currencies are worth less than ours, and they can pollute as much as they want (look at Mexico City). Even if we had no unions at all, the jobs would still go to the poor countries.

There are places where the law requires employees to join a union, however. Otherwise, they can't have that "dream job" they've waited for. You won't find that problem in any "right to work" state.

Yeah, unions eliminate "dream jobs." That's why movie stars are union.

That German worker is doubling your output. He should earn double your pay! You said it yourself, German companies produced more than double what American workers did, according to the story you presented.

The German worker isn't getting paid twice as much because he works twice as hard... it's because they have strong unions and a government that works for the people, not corporate power.

America isn't too big to be run properly. It's too big to be run in socialist fashion. It's too big for Congress to "manage" effectively... If you think not, explain to yourself why we're in the mess we're in...

Again, Germany is NOT socialist. If it were, that would be a powerful pro-socialist argument... after all their economy works pretty damn well and the workers are very well off.

And yes, WE are in a mess. WE as in working class people. The rich are doing just fine... because they're the ones running the show... not us.

Shareholders own the company. It really is their money, as it is their invested dollar at risk.



You find this becasue most of those people make the majority of their income of investments.

If you make (let's assume) $1,000,000 from a job and bring home $650,000 after paying 35% tax (making the numbers easy, not going to do the tax bands), and invest large amounts of it, your eventually going to have and investment portfolio that returns a significant sum. However those profits will be re-taxed at 15% for capital gains.

In the case of the very wealthy they have just tipped the balance to the Capital Gains side of the equation. Their investemnt income is outstripping their salary from a job. However, all the funds used for investment was at one time taxed as regular income. They are not playing some game where said CEO (for example) is getting 15% pulled from his check while you get dinged at 30%

Take the same person as above and assume they make $5,000,000 per year from investments. They will pay.

$1,000,000 x .35 = $350,000
$5,000,000 x .15 = $750,000 (<= Funds already taxed once at 35%)

$1,100,000/6,000,000 = 18.33%

These are really interesting numbers and a good explanation, thank you. Do you happen to know how some large companies are also able to get by without having to pay any taxes annually?

Shareholders own the company. It really is their money, as it is their invested dollar at risk.



You find this becasue most of those people make the majority of their income of investments.

If you make (let's assume) $1,000,000 from a job and bring home $650,000 after paying 35% tax (making the numbers easy, not going to do the tax bands), and invest large amounts of it, your eventually going to have and investment portfolio that returns a significant sum. However those profits will be re-taxed at 15% for capital gains.

In the case of the very wealthy they have just tipped the balance to the Capital Gains side of the equation. Their investemnt income is outstripping their salary from a job. However, all the funds used for investment was at one time taxed as regular income. They are not playing some game where said CEO (for example) is getting 15% pulled from his check while you get dinged at 30%

Take the same person as above and assume they make $5,000,000 per year from investments. They will pay.

$1,000,000 x .35 = $350,000
$5,000,000 x .15 = $750,000 (<= Funds already taxed once at 35%)

$1,100,000/6,000,000 = 18.33%

How does carried interest, taxed at only 15% (31% of Mitt Romney's income) factor into all of this?

Oh boy! The anti union argument in the auto industry again!! As Ive said time and again on here companies like CAT, Deere Co., and CNH have the same structured union contracts as Ford,GM, and Chrysler as well as deal with the same legacy costs and somehow post record profits year after year and are still hiring. In edition JD Power continues to rate the top ten efficient plants in North America as union workforce plants. The evidence is just not in the favor of the anti-union crowd

I'm sorry but you have NO idea what socialism actually is. If you think the Nazis were socialists then you just have no clue. Fascism was corporatism, which is nothing like socialism. The Nazis threw socialists in the camps.

I'm not the one who just said the Nazis were socialists.No, of course they weren't socialist... They called themselves, "The National Socialist German Workers' Party ", but what the Hell did THEY know... You weren't there to "educate" them on what's what...

I've told you what a REAL German citizen claims. I've reminded you what the NAZI party really was and each time, you've discounted it as if you have a clue what you're talking about. You don't, the end.

Germany itself, as a sovereign nation, claims its economy is a "soziale Marktwirtschaft," which means... "social market" economy. Take a trip to Germany and get your bullhorn handy so you can inform all those uneducated fools what YOU KNOW about them, that they don't know!

They're not owned by the state - so it's private enterprise. Yes they're traded publicly but that has nothing to do with socialism.Look into that nonsense as well, and you MIGHT just learn something. Ask a stock trader.

We're done here because even with the information in front of your eyes, you claim it's untrue. The people who live there can tell you themselves, but no... You know more about them than they know! It's just like... :bang:

Oh boy! The anti union argument in the auto industry again!! As Ive said time and again on here companies like CAT, Deere Co., and CNH have the same structured union contracts as Ford,GM, and Chrysler as well as deal with the same legacy costs and somehow post record profits year after year and are still hiring. In edition JD Power continues to rate the top ten efficient plants in North America as union workforce plants. The evidence is just not in the favor of the anti-union crowd Yeah, CAT is simply flush with cash...
http://247wallst.com/2009/01/26/another-lay-off/
http://www.kfgo.com/agri-business-news.php?pageNum_rsAg=65&totalRows_rsAg=1399&ID=8470
http://www.journaltimes.com/business/local/case-new-holland-to-lay-off-at-tractor-plant/article_0e2139d0-58d6-11e1-9ba3-0019bb2963f4.html
http://racineuncovered.org/2012/02/confirmed-layoffs-coming-to-casecnh/

Judging from the above stories, I have to admit, those companies do appear to have been run just like GM, etc...

ALL those you mentioned have had layoffs since 2009... Sure doesn't seem as though they're flourishing from here. Then again, I'm not buying into union hype like you do. Unlike you, I'm not a union employee.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2011-01-13-uaw-organizing_N.htm There's a story for you, about how precious unions can be, while they openly threaten companies through their spokesman...:eyes:

No, of course they weren't socialist... They called themselves, "The National Socialist German Workers' Party ", but what the Hell did THEY know... You weren't there to "educate" them on what's what...

Yeah, and North Korea is a democratic republic. I mean, they are called the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all. It's right there in the name! :eyes:

The Nazis can call themselves whatever they like, doesn't mean a damn thing. Fascists believed in corporatism, not socialism. They threw Marxists and other left-wingers in the concentration camps. Remember how that little saying goes?

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist." And you know how it goes on...

Politicians will always say whatever they need to in order to gain popular support. They say they're "socialists" and they're "for the workers" because that's what the people wanted to hear. Just like politicians in America who say they're "capitalists" who believe in "free markets" when they have NO such belief.

Most people who describe themselves as socialists will say that even the Soviet Union and the various socialist states around the world aren't actually socialist, because the workers aren't in control - but I'm sure this is incomprehensible to you so I'll digress.

I've told you what a REAL German citizen claims. I've reminded you what the NAZI party really was and each time, you've discounted it as if you have a clue what you're talking about. You don't, the end.

That's like someone in Germany saying "I talked to an American, he says that President Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya! It's true, I talked to a REAL American!"

If Germans are anything like Americans, they're completely ignorant about their own government. Saying you talked to a German doesn't mean a damn thing, it would be like saying "I talked to an American."

Germany itself, as a sovereign nation, claims its economy is a "soziale Marktwirtschaft," which means... "social market" economy. Take a trip to Germany and get your bullhorn handy so you can inform all those uneducated fools what YOU KNOW about them, that they don't know!

A social market economy is not the same thing as a socialist market economy. Two seperate things my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy

Germany's "social market economy" was established in West Germany after World War II. Are you telling me that both East and West Germany were BOTH socialist??

You know what, fuck it. Okay, let's call Germany a socialist state. I guess that means socialism works pretty god damn well.

Look into that nonsense as well, and you MIGHT just learn something. Ask a stock trader.

Are you honestly telling me that publicly traded companies like Exxon and Microsoft are examples of socialism? Dude, where are you getting this from?

We're done here because even with the information in front of your eyes, you claim it's untrue. The people who live there can tell you themselves, but no... You know more about them than they know! It's just like... :bang:

Same way I feel.

Yeah, and North Korea is a democratic republic. I mean, they are called the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all. It's right there in the name! :eyes:It's not actually about what the country calls itself by name. It's about what type of ECONOMY they have, but we're clearly well above your head in this debate... We're talking about Germany, not N. Korea.

The Nazis can call themselves whatever they like, doesn't mean a damn thing. Fascists believed in corporatism, not socialism. They threw Marxists and other left-wingers in the concentration camps. Remember how that little saying goes?That was about the name of their party and the link to fascism. You don't have to like it, but facts are stubborn things and they don't care what you think or what you want or what you like. They remain facts.

Politicians will always say whatever they need to in order to gain popular support.Same goes for union pushers.
They say they're "socialists" and they're "for the workers" because that's what the people wanted to hear. Just like politicians in America who say they're "capitalists" who believe in "free markets" when they have NO such belief.Many of them do, but they're bowled over by others along the way, all too frequently.

Most people who describe themselves as socialists will say that even the Soviet Union and the various socialist states around the world aren't actually socialist, because the workers aren't in control - but I'm sure this is incomprehensible to you so I'll digress.Anyone who's noted history during the past 30-50yrs would know that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist, it was communist.

That's like someone in Germany saying "I talked to an American, he says that President Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya! It's true, I talked to a REAL American!"No it isn't, because Americans don't say that. Some angry fools say similar things, but not that.

If Germans are anything like Americans, they're completely ignorant about their own government. Saying you talked to a German doesn't mean a damn thing, it would be like saying "I talked to an American."Not hardly. First off, they're better educated in general. 2nd, the country is so small that people tend to know what's happening.

What I did in this case, however, is ask you to tell it in German so that I could show her and allow a reply from someone who, unlike you, actually knows some things about Germany. You obviously don't speak that language.

A social market economy is not the same thing as a socialist market economy. Two seperate things my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economySo when and where did I even HINT otherwise? I never mentioned a socialist market economy until this very sentence! Do us all a favor though, and don't waste your time using Wikipedia as an educational reference point.

Germany's "social market economy" was established in West Germany after World War II. Are you telling me that both East and West Germany were BOTH socialist??No, but since they're not separate anymore, what would that have to do with ANYTHING we're discussing? I was actually in Germany when the wall came down, so I know that happened. I saw it myself. It's been over 20yrs, but somehow I don't think you have many memories from that time.

Prior to the wall coming down, East Germany was a communist country. Since then, it's (all) been essentially socialist(by gov't. standard) and had a social market economy. The good news is, "conservatism" is on the rise and people are coming to understand that nothing is free, so socialist leaders have largely been defeated in elections for quite some time and their numbers seem to dwindle with the next... They still offer "free" healthcare and other services, which are socialist traits.

You know what, fuck it. Okay, let's call Germany a socialist state. I guess that means socialism works pretty god damn well.You guess, but you don't know. It can work well, for a long time, but not indefinitely. A country the size and population of Germany can probably get by for 100yrs. America, however, cannot. The reason... The "have nots" will still exist and they would revolt.

Are you honestly telling me that publicly traded companies like Exxon and Microsoft are examples of socialism? Dude, where are you getting this from?No, that's not what I'm telling you. In true progressive thinking fashion, you can't stay on topic, because you LOSE when you do that! I'm not wasting more time on this. Some day, you'll have a better grasp, I hope. Today obviously ain't that day.

Same way I feel.Then again, you even admitted you don't know what I'm talking about... and I don't make a habit of treating Wikipedia as a valid information source. ;)

These are really interesting numbers and a good explanation, thank you. Do you happen to know how some large companies are also able to get by without having to pay any taxes annually?

I am not an accountant, but have taken some accounting. There are things like depreciation on equipment (amortized over years), payroll, rent on property, company provided health care, and so forth. these things come out of Gross Revenue to reach a Net Revenue number. Alot of these items are deducted pre-Tax. If you push your Net Revenue down far enough, your tax rate can be very low.

How does carried interest, taxed at only 15% (31% of Mitt Romney's income) factor into all of this?

Again not a tax accountant, but will venture a guess. As one has more disposable wealth you gain investment opportunities (think of things like providing financing to a restaurant, funding a movie; wild crap like that), that most people don't have the money to play in. That carried interest could be in invested funds of some nature and fall under the capital gains law instead of ordinary income.

The point I have been trying to make is don't neccessarily believe what you hear. The news will say "Insert rich guys name only paid 15% taxes." While that may be true from an aggregate perspective, it is not true from a daily job perspective. Now if that person gets to the point that they are living solely on invested funds, then that is true. However, at some point they paid ordinary income tax on those funds when they were initially earned. (Let's avoid inherited funds, as that is an entirely different ball of wax).

Those pics were pretty good

Not a fan of Obama at all (I'm a republican) but was still neat to see the president sit in it and make the comment. I guess there is an auto show in Washington now.


Nope . . . It's because FORD was the only company SMART enough to TURN DOWN his BAILOUT MONEY ! ! !

A.B.O. ( anyone but Obama ) in 2012 ! ! !

Nope . . . It's because FORD was the only company SMART enough to TURN DOWN his BAILOUT MONEY ! ! !

A.B.O. ( anyone but Obama ) in 2012 ! ! !

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zGnH6HWaAi0/S7kBtggIQrI/AAAAAAAAFgY/QYs7D1HWdsI/double_facepalm_tng.jpg

For the love of fucking god, you need to read the papers or at least listen to some intelligent news for once. This shit gets old, FAST.

This was even posted on LS1tech a year ago and you still missed it. FORD TOOK MONEY....PERIOD



http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/blue-ops-the-clandestine-bailout-of-ford/





The CPFF was a loan program. I have no problem with companies getting pure loans from the government.

GM got ~50 billion, only 6.7 billion was considered a pure loan. Which they paid back 2 years ago from an escrow account created from the bailout money...nice shell game GM. The rest was supposed to be paid back (interest free i might add) in the form of stock. Which they have not done yet...they still owe taxpayers 25 billion.

No no, we're not bringing this back. Pay attention to the dates and don't respond.

I know, it's been beaten to death. Just can't help myself when people don't know WTF their talking about.

Nope . . . It's because FORD was the only company SMART enough to TURN DOWN his BAILOUT MONEY ! ! !

A.B.O. ( anyone but Obama ) in 2012 ! ! !

Quality post to bump a 7 month old thread.

Someone want to tell me when social programs in America became synonymous with evil?

I guess presidents like FDR and Dwight Eisenhower were evil socialist communists intent on destroying America.

I'm pretty sure ever since the Guilded Ages of the 1880s, it has been pretty much widely accepted that there are significant problems inherent to laissez faire economic systems.

Someone want to tell me when social programs in America became synonymous with evil?


Sure . . . When they started being "rammed down our throats" and have "MANDATES" . . . Also, when I am told " We have to pass the Bill to find out what's in it" . . .Sounds like OBAMACARE to me !

TWO WEEKS FROM TUESDAY . . . Election Day . . . Time to CLEAN UP this "MESS" in the White House !

Sure . . . When they started being "rammed down our throats" and have "MANDATES" . . . Also, when I am told " We have to pass the Bill to find out what's in it" . . .Sounds like OBAMACARE to me !

TWO WEEKS FROM TUESDAY . . . Election Day . . . Time to CLEAN UP this "MESS" in the White House !

someone is a little emotional. :corn: