Woman to Woman

By Lyrazel

January 2, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

Truth is there is already a 6000 tax deduction for small businesses to purchase SUVs, ooo wink wink politics at its covert best!

Remember Dodge is no longer an American company. GM et al, are leaving manufacturing centers because it no longer wants to hire employees who expect benefits of health insurance and pensions. Canadas socialist health care means that businesses dont need to pay the high American healthcare costs that have been bleeding their profits dry. It means that Dodge can dump pensioners and go for profit—which looks great on books and is fine for shareholders. They STILL will get a NAFTA tax break, so dont weep too hard for their plight. How very Capitalist/how very American. Ford is headed away because of the same reasons, and so what is it we are going to buy that is American? DeLorean?

Why must the government (essentially taxpayers) have to bail out or begin incentive programs for businesses that cannot see beyond their own profits that drove them to extinction? Sadly, we see the departure of manufacturing from other areas: steel, textiles, technology and nary a quip is made. As for Buy American—try and find a shirt Shaunti that was made in America. How about a pair of shoes? What about a dress, or jeans? What? All your Christmas presents and the holiday cards you sent were made in China? Even those cute Hallmark cards? Why werent your towels once made by JP Stevens out of GA? Well they closed up and went overseas YEARS ago—Why no Buy American Programs for them? Isnt this just Capitalism at work in America? Havent we all been raised to worship at the alter of cheap foreign goods? If a Nissan is made in Alabama…is it American? If a Toyota is made in Illinois: is it American? If they all use parts made in Asia is it really an American car?

Perhaps the grip of the auto manufacturing needs a swan song so America can start developing public transportation/alternative fuels and all the other programs abandoned because of the automotive industry. America can finally quit the soaring demands for fossil fuels because of their lack of vision by keeping automotive technology backward to increase profits. Maybe its time to wake up to see just how congested the highways are with the American dream of car ownership before the interstate moves through your subdivision too.

By Mike

January 2, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

While it seems an irrelevant question to start with; Should the government start a “buy American� program to save U.S. Automakers?; the comments by these two border somewhere near absurd.

For beginners; it never worked in the past, and there is no logical reason to expect such a program to work today. That said, the positions taken by these two commentators certainly don’t reflect what they presuppose as their ideological beliefs.

Starting with Diane’s contention: If this were really about bad decisions, who helped in their formulation? American workers share some responsibility in this too. Were they really bad decisions? They were certainly formed with good relevant goals which one would think a ‘left-leaning columnist’ would understand, and hopefully endorse. Good wages, good health care and good retirement packages seem goal worthy to this left leaner. Why are we afraid to endorse that today? Further, Diane implies that American auto companies are bad because they haven’t endorsed the ‘green’ ideas of saving fuel; forcing autos to be environmental bellwethers; and having bad styling. I seem to remember trials of electric and diesel cars from American companies which the American public would not buy. Also, for Diane to suggest lessons to be learned about free trade would be relevant if such were really the case. It hasn’t been for years; the yen is controlled very effectively by the Japanese government. Bad mouthing American auto companies will do nothing about solving the problems for not only those businesses; but also faced by the workers in them, which at least at one time was an important part of the ‘left-leaning community.’ I’d like to here her explain that away; while still leaning left.

As for Shaunti’s assertion of an ideological basis for her comments: This too smacks of dis ingenuousness. It’s simply amazing how the ‘right-leaners’ can suddenly find compassion when it fits in with her last statement: “Turnabout is fair play, and it is our turn.â€? This isn’t about ideology; it’s about politics. But then right-leaners always place politics above their supposed ideology of the wonders of capitalism.

The real short term solution will probably be government guarantees; similar to what was done to keep Chrysler afloat; although we are not quite there yet. Long term solutions will have to be in the form of national health care and guaranteed pensions; along with government support of our manufacturing base in the form of controlled (level) currency policies. But those concepts are still too alien to most Americans. The other solution is to allow what is left of the US manufacturing base to continue to erode. Then in another 10 to 15 years we can all be driving autos supplied by the Chinese and/or Indians.

By Chilao

January 2, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Talk about a complete switch with these two women, ideologically. LOL Thought the Left was protectionist and the Right free-market. And Shaunti is correct, the American consumer has determined the success of gas-guzzling SUVs. After all, we can always go kill some more Arabs for the oil needed. SNORT. Or at least whine about the economic-blackmail of oil-producing nations. It IS our oil, after all. (Even bigger Snort).

Tried that Buy-American after the first Gulf War, to “reward” Japan for their lackluster support of us, their most major trading partner. Ended up with a General Motors Grand Am, a GREAT car, ‘but’ it had an Italian transmission and other parts from around the world. And 1/2 metric, 1/2 SAE bolts. Put 270K on that car. 36mpg as well, on road trips, and averaged 32 mpg. Next vehicle was also a GM but I am now back to Honda.

A Nissan made in Alabama? Profits go back to Japan, do not stay in the USA. Sure, American workers are employed but.. Actually, Alabama makes Honda minivans, Mercedes SUV, and Hyandai, as well as the Toyota truck V8 motor. But got the point.

Actually there was a News of the Weird topic recently, apparently either Nissan or Toyota located their newest North American plant in Ontario, seems they had less than nice things to say about the rural undeducated southern workforce. Just something I read.

Now we should all know by now that the typical American public business, which includes all American auto-makers, does not think beyond what the next quarter’s finanacial statement will look like, and how it will affect their stock price on Wall Street.

By Van

January 2, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

It does seem strange that foreign automakers are building cars in the US, and US automakers are building cars in other countries.

If the “big” US automakers would build plants and staff them with NON-UNION workers, then maybe they can compete with the Nissans, Mercedes and Toyotas of the world.

By Brian Curtis

January 2, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

I agree it’s an odd question. Why SHOULD we do anything to help U.S. auto makers… what have they ever done for us?

And haven’t they been screaming the loudest about the Evils of Government Interference with the sacred free hand of the market? If we fell for their scam—leaving them free to reap profits when times are goodn, and bailing them out when times get tough—well, that would make us even bigger suckers than we already are. It’s called “privatizing the profit while socializing the risk,” and even diehard free-marketeers wouldn’t like that.

If U.S. automakers are in trouble, let ‘em fall. They’ve certainly made no bones about the fact that they have no loyalty to the U.S., so why should we show any to them?

By Dusty

January 2, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Leave it to Brian Curtis to say nothing good at all about anything American or American made cars. He asks “What have they (US auto makers) ever done for us?”

Well, they have made good cars which is what they were supposed to do. They have also paid good wages and given good benefits which is what we Americans are supposed to want for EVERYBODY. Did you want a chauffeur thrown in with every car? Did you want poorly paid illegal immigrants building our cars?

I don’t want any more government programs. But I would like Americans to think twice about cars made by Americans and where the profits go. I have a GM car that runs like a top, economical and comfortable. Try it. You’ll like it! (No, I don’t work in the automotive field.)

By mobeel

January 2, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Good for you that your GM car runs like a top, but US automakers have been lagging far behind their foreign counterparts in terms of quality. What else should a consumer care about other than buying the highest quality product for the money? If you check consumer reports best in class lists, nearly all of the models listed are Japanese and European, with the exception of a few Ford models.

By ASA

January 3, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Should the American Govt. start a “buy American” program for USA auto makers???!!! NO…N-O…as in negatory! I want the USA auto makers to figure it out for themselves! Once, there was a saying that “as goes General Motors, so goes the Nation.” That still applies - if GM can’t figure out how to do business in today’s world, I imagine that the rest of the Nation won’t be able to figure it out either. If American automakers are suffering due to the nature of American auto buyers’ buying habits, what does that say about the automakers’ critical thinking skills? We’ve got to wonder, why is it that when there is economic down turns in any industry - that industry goes belly-up - except for the select few that are flexible enough to absorb - or even profit from the economic upheveal? If any of us - business or individuals - have to go to the government for economic help whenever we can’t paddle our own canoe, we are NOT independent. We are NOT self-sufficient. We are just glorified wards of the state.

By E. Lewis

January 3, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

This is a good concept, but like anything else the buyer must beware. Because of a technicality proudly protected by Tom Delay, products made in sweatshops and largely owned Chinese factories, by immigrant labor in places like Saipan and the North Mariana Island which are officially United States protectorates can use the made in the USA label.

By Denise

January 3, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

I think that the issue is quality when we are talking about vehicles as well as reputation. If the American car makers wouldn’t stab themselves in the foot by giving consumers large rebates at the end of the year, then the value of their vehicles wouldn’t plummet. I bought a “Japanese” car, probably made in America, because they rarely offer huge incentives, and the car retains its resale value. Yes, it cost me more, but the reputation of dependability was there. I believe my car will last me 10 years, which is more than I can say for the three chevrolets I’ve had over the past 14 years. I was willing to pay the price for sound mind. Who isn’t? You can’t send an idiot to clown school to become a better idiot. There’s no way to help an american car industry full of greed an lacking in practicality and planning. We have energy supply insufficiencies, not surpluses, and any genius in the car industry should have realized that SUV’s are going to die out as the egotists’ pocket book shrinks from the high price of gas.

By kimberly

January 3, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Would this “buy American” PR campaign involve the expenditure of tax dollars? Then NO. We already have debts and deficits. Hello?

Still, there are two things the government COULD do that could potentially improve the US Auto Industry in the long run: (1) reform the corrupt health insurance industry so that workers can afford to be healthy and employers aren’t bled dry and tempted to take their plants to other countries, and (2) put more $$ into education instead of less.

Fewer Americans graduating with math, science, and engineering skills means fewer innovations by Americans in American industries in the coming decades. A nation of dummies and dropouts can only make so good a product. A nation of thinkers has unlimited potential. Why so stingy with the school dollars, folks? Don’t you see it would benefit ALL of us, if MORE of us were smart?

By Nikita

January 3, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Hi, there —

I sold cars for several years, both foreign and domestic. So, someone above said american cars lag in quality. That’s certainly true of some models. But others excel, and if you look at defect rates most american cars are solidly average (honda, incidentally, is too). Better than, say, Volvos and worse than Buicks. I don’t really think quality is the issue, though — the perception of quality is the issue, based on 20 years of shoddy, disposable cars. So they now make good cars for the most part — but try finding a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am that is still running well, or running at all.

Personally, I have two Chevrolets and a Saab — one of the Chevrolets is now 20 years old and a great car. It works hard on a daily basis, and has its entire life. Quite reliably, might I add.

There are bigger questions here, however, than whether or not the companies in question deserve to survive. A) What kind of free market economy are we operating when we subsidize some industries and not others, as well as create incentives and other such silliness to promote one industry to the detriment of others? B) What is the tariff situation, and is it unfairly penalizing american automakers?

By mit

January 3, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

if it says “made in the USA” then is was more than likely made in a sweatshop on the island of Guam.

American automakers are not american any more. They maybe owned by americans but they are built by NAFTA and pretty soon by CAFTA.

at REI I have people who want to “buy american” products only so they pretty much have to walk out the door or spent alot of money. most all are made in China now. the best made, highest quality gear? Arcteryx which is made in Canada. one gore-tex jacket can run $350-$500.

I really don’t understand the direction from which this country views there ‘made by’ policies. In 1980, what if a product (besides vodka) was “made in Russia”. No one would by that. heck, they probably wouldn’t buy it even today when Russia is a democracy (well, kindof). But “made in China” is ok? that to me that makes no sense. WE (the american people) are in debt tons of cash to a COMMUNIST govt. this wouldn’t fly with Russia so why is ok with China? “buy American” won’t work. “buy crappy stuff” would be more a correct statement for you to make. since as stated above “made in america” is no better than “made in China”. Walmart will still sell it to you and you will still need a new next year.

I will stick with “made in Canada”.

By Denise

January 3, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

If we would stop giving money to other countries, allowing them a free education in our country, and taxing them less than they tax us, then perhaps we wouldn’t have all our problems.
We are a society of greed. It doesn’t matter who the greedy stomp on to make their dollar. That’s why the oil industry is making record profits while we are in an energy crisis situation. They are stomping on Americans by financing these foreign countries. Let them stand on their own and see how far they get.
The problem in schools is more psychological than economic. The kids aren’t willing to learn anything just to end up slaving for a dollar like dear old Mom and Dad. They have no motivation.

By E. Lewis

January 3, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

My first car was “made in the USA” with parts from Canada, Mexico and Japan.

By concerned citizen

January 3, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Absolutely not. Capitalism is based on the notion that the strong survive and the weak do not. American automakers have been, for years, making inferior automobiles. Add that fact to powerful unions, who punish hard workers who might make success for themselves if judged individually and reward mediocrity of the masses, have made manufacturing automobiles in the U.S. a riduculously expensive endeavor and you have the impending disaster. Face it, these giant sloths (Ford, GM, etc.) have been out-done at capitalism by the Japanese. Patriotism can’t heal that. What will have to happen is the same thing that is happening in the airline business. Smaller, more agile, more intelligent and innovative automakers will have to enter the market (like Southwest Airlines) to change the status of the US automaker. Otherwise the US automaker is done for.

By Whiley

January 3, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

I just want a good cheap car that works. I’d also like it in bright pink.

By Van

January 3, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Question,

How many want to go out and pay $20 grand for a Pontiac Aztec?

How about an Xterra?

Both made in the US.

By Brian Curtis

January 3, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

I don’t agree with Shuanti and Diane’s claim that they’re somehow “switching sides.” Rather, they’re being perfectly consistent.

Liberals and Democrats prefer government involvement to help serve the people of this country; corporations neither need nor deserve assistance.

Conservatives (modern ones, anyway) apparently think that corporations are more important than people and deserve not only special privileges, but also assistance whenever they run into trouble… no matter what the consequences for workers and consumers.

Next fall, ask yourself: Am I a corporation or a citizen? That might give you clue as to which party’s looking out for your interests.

By Archie

January 3, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

I have to agree more with Diane on this issue but Shanti does make some good points when she says that as Americans we choose to buy the big gas-guzzling cars. I bought into buy American when I was much younger and didn’t realize how greedy some Americans are. Some people can justify anything in the name of making a dollar. I don’t think a buy American program is a good idea and the American automakers can save themselves by making quality cars and foreign competition will help American automakers be as honest as they intend to be.

By blablabla

January 3, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

I don’t agree with Shuanti and Diane’s claim that they’re somehow “switching sides.� Rather, they’re being perfectly consistent. Liberals and Democrats prefer government involvement to help serve the people of this country; corporations neither need nor deserve assistance. Conservatives (modern ones, anyway) apparently think that corporations are more important than people and deserve not only special privileges, but also assistance whenever they run into trouble… no matter what the consequences for workers and consumers. Next fall, ask yourself: Am I a corporation or a citizen? That might give you clue as to which party’s looking out for your interests.

ha, ha, ha. lol @ brian curtis. seriously, brian, stop drinking someone else’s koolaid and start thinking for yourself. your simple-mindedness is laughable.

By Archie

January 3, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Amen Whiley to your 1:40 post but I don’t want a pink car.

By Denise

January 3, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I want a car that last longer than it takes for me to pay it off…. That’s why I bought Japanese. :-)

By Just Being Me

January 3, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Archie, I happen to think you’d look cute in pink. Pink is the new black.

By Tom

January 3, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

I believe a good part of the reason american automakers are feeling the squeeze now is due to very bad corporate decisions that were consistently made but never seemingly corrected. Take for example the 1970’s when the cost of gas was high(for that time anyway)and the big three were still manufacturing big gas guzzling cars. A vast majority of consumers switched over the smaller cars being produced from overseas(at that time).
The big three didn’t keep up with the demand for more fuel efficient cars and tried to jump in with really bad clunkers(i.e. ford pinto, chevy chevette) I personally drive a chevy prizm(which is a toyota corolla in disguise) and have owned it for 6 years without a wisp of problems. I have yet to see an american nameplate that has produced a car comparable in quality to a japanese nameplate. This is due to bad decisions made by the corporate decision makers of the big three-these are ones to blame for downfall. The workers are the puppets of the big corporate game and the u.s. consumers get the bad end of the deal.

By Renee

January 4, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

If the question is “Should the government start a buy American program to save US Automakers” I say NO. Is that what government is here for, to save automakers, airlines etc. Free market right? I can buy American or foreign, whichever I choose. Shouldn’t US automakers work on saving themselves.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Oh, goody! Here’s bla to tell us all about simple-mindedness.

Go ahead with your demo, bla: we’re all ready to watch.

By blablabla

January 4, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

brian, i’m not the one with the empty headed view of liberals and conservatives. so sorry to disappoint, but the only demo on simple mindedness is coming from you. unlike you, i realize that simple catchall phrases like “democrats want to help people” and “conservatives want to help corporations” don’t really mean anything in the real world and that such thinking is hardly evolved beyond “liberals = good, conservatives = bad.”

if you have something more sophisticated or nuanced to say, by all means, surprise me. but if you’re going to continue to offer mind-numbing generalizations, then enjoy your kool-aid.

By Mel

January 4, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

The first thing that came to my mind when reading the question was the precendent the government has already set. We are in dangerous times here — the government has bailed out the airlines (not that it has protected them from bankruptcy anyway), we give stipends to people when tragedies occur - from 9/11 to the Katrina fallout - and then we’re going to be able to pick and choose who to help?? So, my answer is no but we need to be consistent and stop being the parent who always buys his/her child out of trouble, a bad decision or because they didn’t get their way. And by the by, AMEN to the comment about getting the unions out of business. Talk about a needed idea (in the 20’s!) gone bad…just like so many things our society abuses. But that’s another topic.

By DumbMel

January 4, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Of course let’s get the unions out of business. We need even more coal-miner deaths. Cannot have some slimey union complaining about 208 (count them, 208) safety violations in one year. Probably a $50 fine each under our current administration.

By Bush's fault

January 4, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Right, Bush’s fault…always is. So narrow minded. Just like missing Bin Laden the first time was all Clinton’s fault. Unions ARE a problem. Geez, good business and ones without unions CAN exist. Unions that allow ridicuolous salaries for assembly line jobs in today’s technology age need to be reexamined (and ask the union members of the NY transit system about it - the majority of them didn’t want to strike…who was representing them? Unions serve the organizers). As for WV’s miner deaths — of course that is awful and the company is being investigated…which would have happened with or without unions. Take just a minute to think through your statements.

By Renee

January 4, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

I don’t see how logically a union would have prevented the tragedy in West VA. I’m not for unions at all. They are not looking out for the union members at all. Just my opinion.

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

At this point, I don’t think anyone has enough information to determine whether or not a union (or anyone else, for that matter) could have prevented this tragic explosion. I guess it’s just human nature to always want to blame someone.

But, I do want to add that not ALL unions are bad. There are some really good unions out there that really are doing the best they can to improve the work environments of their members. I know this firsthand, because I worked for one of them for the majority of my career.

I also know that there are some bad unions out there too (worked for one of those right here in Atlanta). They were only concerned with increasing membership and getting dues, couldn’t care less about the members’ valid issues. In fact, I did a complete career change just because of this one union. Having the passion for justice that I have, there was no way I could sit back and try to collect dues while ignoring the woes of these hardworking, grossly underpaid employees.

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Forgot to say good morning! Good Morning, All! Happy New Year!!

~waving~ Hey Renee!

By Renee

January 4, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Heyyyyyyyyyyy JBM. Long time no hear from. I need to call you so we can chit chat and catch up. I have had my share of problems this holiday season lol.

Oh, and I will go along with your statement that not all unions are bad. Uh-oh (is that cheering you on again) lol.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Bla: It may be simple, but it’s true. All the Republican talk about “keeping government out of the free market” is a legacy from Ronald “Government is the problem” Reagan… and it’s now biting the corporate profiteers in the a* when it comes to bailouts.

And the typical proponents of corporate bailouts are those who benefit most from their campaign contributions—again, Republicans. And who’s been targeting tax cuts for the wealthy, the so-called “death tax,” tort reform, Medicare tweaks to avoid cheap Canadian drugs, etc.? Republicans. Republicans. Republicans.

Face facts: While both parties are corrupt, the Republicans are the party of the wealthy. They serve corporate interests first and foremost, and anyone who earns less than a six-figure income would be a fool to support them.

As for GM? Let ‘em suffer. They’ve shown no loyalty to America or its people, so there’s no reason to rush in and give them more money now that they’re in trouble.

By RF

January 4, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Unions couldn’t have prevented the awful deaths of those trapped miners. The unions have worked, successfully, to increase safety standards in recent decades. The kind of explosion that occurred is rare anymore. So unions have, at least to some degree, helped improve overall working conditions. Tragedies like this remind us how risky some jobs are.

As to the car question, I drive a big ‘ol Chevy pickup. I bought it knowing that it would guzzle gas. I chose to buy it and pay for the gas that goes with it. I think the Japanese have the US automakers beat hands down on economy and price. That’s just the way it is. The US companies will either learn to compete or they’ll go out of business. So far, Ford is the only US auto company with a publicized plan for hybrid vehicles. I suspect Toyota will own GM or Ford before the end of the decade anyway.

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Renee, I know what you mean. I had a rough one this year too… and if it doesn’t get better soon, I may have to become….

a heterosexual!!! ~gasp~

LOL! I meant to call you, but I’ve been trying my best to sleep my life away… well, after I get home from work, that is. LOL

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Hey RF!!! Happy New Year and welcome back! You were SO missed around here.

By Renee

January 4, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Fight the feeling JBM. Turn away from the light!!!!! Lol.

Maybe we should just get together and it would solve all of our problems LOL JK!!!!

I know what you mean by sleeping. I have been vegging out and playing hearts every night. Very productive!

By Renee

January 4, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

I forgot to say hi RF!!!!! Long time no hear from. Hope you had a great holiday. You were definitely missed!

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Renee, I know right!!! LOL!

I tried playing spades and hearts, but I preferred to be asleep when she comes home… lol!

By RF

January 4, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Hey JBM and Renee!! Happy New Year to you too!! the holidays were great. We slept in and ate like pigs. I love having the time off with my boys. Teaching works well for single parents, let me tell you. Of course, it was tough getting up and getting back today!! JBM- you must have had a rough holiday if you’re thinking about stepping back over the line. I think the holidays can be a true test of a relationship. As much as we enjoy the time, it really does stress us out trying to get it all done and eating all the wrong food. Hang in there- as my folks say “it’ll either get better or you’ll get out” (my mom used that one a lot on my dad when he was a horse’s behind).

By Renee

January 4, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Very true RF!! JBM, don’t go back to the dark side lol lol.

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

I can’t make any promises…

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Renee, I’ll shoot you an e-mail…

By Renee

January 4, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

okalee dokalee

By AllaboutME

January 4, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

…tell me…does this only concern NEW cars or does it apply to USED cars (which most people buy since they know rebates are gimmicks because at the end of the year the cost of the same car depreciates below the rebate being offered and original asking price)?…because the profits for a USED car dont go to automotive corporations…so what the (explicative here) arent we ALREADY buying American if we buy a used car?…duh…or are we importing used cars from Europe & asia?

oh and…what happens if the big auto industry KEEPS laying off American workers…despite these (explicative here) Buy American programs…like GMs employee discount rebate…ha ha ha 350,000 people laid off work and we get their employee bonus…so GM can run to canada… yeah we got no job..and you want me to buy a NEW car… my check is in the mail….along with my campaign contributions to the (explicative here) republican party…

do… we bail out oil companies next? 300% profit last year…and they got subsidies!!! what a joke…(explicative here)

By Just Being Me

January 4, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Hmmm. Are you angry, AllAboutMe?

By blablabla

January 4, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

brian, what corporate bailouts? i think you’re confusing corporate “bailouts” with corporate welfare/pork, which has been around on both sides of the political aisle for a loooong time.

“tax cuts for the wealthy”. this may be news to you, but we don’t tax wealth in this country; we tax income. they’re not even close to the same thing. the truly wealthy shield their income and minimize their taxes.

“death tax”. why are you against the elimination of the estate tax? those assets were already taxed in the year in which it they entered the estate as income. are you saying that the gov’t should be more entitled to the fruits of someone’s labor than that person’s family?

“tort reform”. what, you don’t think some tort reform would be a good idea? and have you ever examined the reasons why democrats are usually so stridently against tort reform? it certainly would have nothing to do with where they get their campaign donations, now would it…

and you’re painfully naive if you think the counterbalance to your “republicans are the party of the wealthy” is that democrats are the party of the little people.

As for GM? Let ‘em suffer. They’ve shown no loyalty to America or its people.

corporations don’t exist to exhibit loyalty. they exist to make returns for their shareholders. paying exorbinant legacy costs for employees and paying three people to do the job of two people bc of a union contract doesn’t further that goal. so they move. they downsize. they invest in robotization to reduce employee costs. etc, etc.

instead of saying “screw GM”, the question you should be asking yourself is whether or not the auto industry can or should be restructured where: reasonable wages/benefits can be provided to a right-sized workforce, a sound product can be produced to meet discriminating consumer tastes, and still allow for a reasonable return on invested capital to be achieved, and can this still happen in the US?

and even if the answer is NO, it can’t be done in the US anymore, then you should ask yourself if the auto industry fulfills a certain function that is vital to US interests, where the elimination of the auto industry from the US would be deleterious to our standard of living (or possibly our defense) in one way or another? if the answer to that is YES, then perhaps it would be wise to erect some protectionist policies with respect to the auto industry, much like the jones act does with shipbuilding. this may not fit into your simple worldview, but sometimes conservatives don’t view free market principles as absolutes.

but please, go on and tell everybody to “screw GM”, while you drink your kool aid and tell people that liberals are the party of the educated, open minded, problem-solving thinkers. lol.

you like simple. simple works for you. it’s easier to say “screw gm” than it is to think about what you’re really saying and the consequences. kind of along the lines of conservatives = bad, liberals = good.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Bla: Thanks for attempting to reply… though you largely failed. I’ll try to give you a quick and easy education, so read carefully.

“Corporate bailouts�—How short your memory is! We, the People, had to foot the bill for the big S&L bailout—a natural consequence of Reagan’s deregulation frenzy. And we likewise paid for the airline bailouts following 9/11. The topic here, this week, is whether to launch yet another government initiative (i.e., paid for by US) to help the auto industry.

“The wealthyâ€? are the people who control most of the wealth in this country, through both income and other sources (unearned sources like capital gains, for example). We DO tax income, which is why the wealthy pay so little in taxes. Do you suggest that, because they’ve arranged loopholes through their governmental influence, we shouldn’t even TRY to tax them? But I guess “cheater should win” is the motto of the current administration anyway….

“Death tax�—More properly called an estate tax, it’s paid by less than 1% of estates—-those with (I believe) $1 million or more in assets. And no, the estate has NOT been “taxed twice� under such a program; that’s just the Wall Street Journal’s favorite catch phrase to condemn the idea of taxing anything but income, which would “unfairly� target the wealthy.

“Tort reform�—This is another buzzword to mask its real purpose: To make sure that corporate wrongdoers can injure and kill people without having to pay any really big penalties. Once that’s in place, they can build in the costs of wrongful-death lawsuits and continue with business as usual. It’s a way to deny ordinary citizens one of their few weapons against corporate criminals—the courts system.

Are the Democrats the party of the little people? Not really, not any more. But the Repugnicans never WERE… and anyone who saw the mess after Hurricane Katrina shouldn’t be able to suggest, with a straight face, that the Republicans are even AWARE of the working class, still less with their welfare.

“Corporations don’t exist to exhibit loyalty.� Quite right, which is why we have a government to ride herd on them and make sure all their operations are for the public good. It’s also why they don’t deserve any sympathy or special treatment when they run into trouble (especially of their own making).

Now, did you follow all that, or do I need to go over the hard words for you?

By AllaboutME

January 4, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

…JBM…angry? not me! Im kind of happy…what about you…you regular today? got that low-carb diet going yet? feeling fresh?

blablabla…so I asked myself if the auto industry fulfills a certain function that is vital to US interests, where the elimination of the auto industry from the US would be deleterious to our standard of living (or possibly our defense) in one way or another? my answer was NO….get a grip on reality! your naiveté is frightening… GM is unloading workers as fast as it can taking the industry with them…arent they sayin…to us US folks who were loyal buyers and loyal workers: (explicative) you America! like where is their loyalty? where is their love of American worker and the american taxpayer who paid for the great GM bailout in the 80s?

…but seriously blabla…dont you know much of the national defense software/programers/etc is being done by contract labor using workers in/from other nations…so how secure is that? how secure is depending on vaccines from other countries?

…and just how secure America is the automotive industry that keeps producing vehicles tied to fossil fuels thus keeping consumers dependent on other nations because they can make bigger profits for shareholders?

By Netbanker

January 4, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Hey Everyone! Hope you’ve all enjoyed a good holiday season. I had a GREAT New Year although the weekend started off with a bit of a rush to the airport unexpectedly. Anywho…

Bla…some very good questions! When it comes to the restructuring I believe those to be a matter for the auto industry to resolve on their own as part of the capitalist game. Personal opinion is that they are in the bed of their own making. Short term and strategic planning, as well as contingency planning, need to be done by all businesses if they expect to survive.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, AAME: Exactly. Thanks for taking a hand in bla’s education.

Remember: Corporation does NOT = “person.” People have rights and a government to watch out for them; corporations have, and deserve, neither.

By blablabla

January 4, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

brian, even when you try you can’t get your facts correct.

first of all, the DIDMCA (Depository Institution Deregulation) was passed in 1980, which is before Reagan ever took office. secondly, the net worth requirement for institutions of this nature was reduced to only 4% well before reagan took office. care to revise anymore history today?

and would you not have the gov’t bail out the airline industry? nah, we’ll just all drive everywhere.

a “buy america” program, is nothing even remotely close to a corporate bailout.

“The wealthy� are the people who control most of the wealth in this country, through both income and other sources (unearned sources like capital gains, for example). We DO tax income, which is why the wealthy pay so little in taxes. Do you suggest that, because they’ve arranged loopholes through their governmental influence, we shouldn’t even TRY to tax them? But I guess “cheater should win� is the motto of the current administration anyway….

so capital gains are “unearned”? how clueless are you? we do tax income, which, poor brian, is why the wealthy don’t pay taxes. this is the problem. unfortunately, do-gooders like yourself like to make the upwardly mobile who earn high incomes pay progressive income taxes, which only makes it more difficult to truly build wealth. so no, silly, i’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t try to tax wealth, but i’m simply pointing out that our current tax system fails in achieving that goal bc it focuses solely on income and not on wealth. but you and most of your ilk stand steadfastly in the way of any meaningful tax reform. even your example of who should support the GOP you refer to income. under the current system somebody who earns 400,000 per year can pay more in taxes than somebody with 40,000,000 in net worth.

you give yourself away when you refer to the wealthy as “cheaters”. glad to see you subscribe to that gephardt-esque the-rich-won-life’s-lottery-mindset.

and unfortunately brian, any rudimentary understanding of the estate tax will confirm that the wealth is taxed twice. first when it is earned, second when the value of the estate is determined for tax purposes. you simply don’t know what you’re talking about here.

your description on tort reform is also painfully simplistic.

as for hurricane katrina, i’m sure you’re aware that the gov of louisiana is a democrat, as is the mayor. the local response from these officials was embarassing. but who cares about local gov’t, everything has to do with the feds, right brian? it’s all bush’s fault that the gov and the mayor didn’t do their jobs, or that the state spent years worth of federal money on other pork/pet projects instead of improving the levees. we wouldn’t want to let those facts get in the way of your kanye west-like ignorance (bush doesn’t care about black people) or your louis farrakhan-like ignorance (they blew up the levees to flood the black folks). nah, that’s too easy.

and just what is the “working class”, brian? speaking of buzzwords you guys like to toss around, that’s a fave of the left. i work, brian, but somehow i get the feeling you’re not talking about me when you say “working class”.

By blablabla

January 4, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

allaboutme -

if that’s what you’ve come to when you’ve thought about the issue, then don’t support any future gov’t bailout. nowhere in my post do i say we should bail out the industry. nowhere in my post do i say the automakers aren’t in a bed of their own making.

what i said is that you can’t take the simpleton view of the brian curtis’ of the world and just say “screw GM” without asking yourself some tough questions.

netbanker - i agree 100%. the auto industry made its bed, now it can lie in it. all this talk of a “bailout” is incredibly premature anyway. GM lost investment grade status, what, last year? it’s not like GM’s going anywhere.

By RF

January 4, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Net- why the rush to the airport? Don’t you hate those unexpected time consumers? Glad to hear you had a good holiday. How’s the partner doing these days- better I hope.

By RF

January 4, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

bla and net- unless GM and others wake up and realize they’re not competing as well, they will go under eventually. They’re giants, but then so was Delta. They’re going to have to do some restructuring of product and attitude towards profit, salaries, etc. to make it. I can see Toyota buying them out in the next five years or so if they don’t make some changes (i.e.- alternative fuels, reasonable salaries for upper management, competitive pricing, etc.). I have a feeling they, like Delta, won’t get it done in time. We have this attitude in America that “I deserve the most pay for the least effort” that has ruined our production economy.

By Joke

January 4, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

I think we should all be Super Patriotic and offer to work for industry as cheaply as the Chinese, Bangledeshis, etc, are working for. That will certainly solve our problem.

watcha say, folks, how about a 90 percent pay-cut?

By FatMoose

January 4, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

I agree with NetBs statement.

This is all a function of where businesses are as well as America. I would like to see America and its business doing stellar; but applying a bandaid (at our expense no less) will not heal this deep wound.

I think that it does raise deeper questions regarding: should there even be a minimum pay with out a solid minimum education level in the US? If there is stratification of classes should we not expect the work/pay to be stratified as well? If we do aspire to a minimum level of education/pay - who does the flippin’ of burgers?

The last question could be solved by automation, as well as many others, but the population seems to high for us all to be techies. Not to mention immigrants that have no standard education…

Just my 2 cents and rant.

Hello all;) Hope your days have been good.

{JBM - I did not have time to respond to your last post of last week; but agree.}

By blablabla

January 4, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

what’s really sad, brian, is that you can say things like this:

and anyone who saw the mess after Hurricane Katrina shouldn’t be able to suggest, with a straight face, that the Republicans are even AWARE of the working class, still less with their welfare.

…but fail to recognize that when you say “let GM suffer” that you really end up hurting the former employees that are owed a pension by GM, or the employees/former employees of dephi, one of the world’s largest auto parts who’s already in chapter. or how about all the suppliers who were owed money from some other delphi or some other GM that wouldn’t get paid if those big companies failed. when you say “let em’ suffer”, you’re failing to realize that a lot of the working class little people will end up suffering as a result.

By Netbanker

January 4, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Hey RF! It wasn’t an unexepected time consumer it was an unexpected trip. Hubby came home in a foul mood and said he needed a change of venue (“I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired and feeling trapped in this house..I need to get OUT of here!) So he called Delta at 6pm, by 6:15 he’s got them on hold while I phone my cousin to see if he could take the pup for the weekend, by 6:20 we were booked on the 9pm flight, out the door at 7:05 to drop the dog and head to the airport! The weather was GREAT and we were LAZY! It was fantastic and I think just what he needed….he is feeling better and recovery seems to be picking up speed so I’m hoping he’ll be done with the arthritis stuff very soon. Thanks for asking.

RF as you point out many companies need to change tack on how they run their businesses. I don’t know the auto industry at all so I don’t know the timeframes involved from design to production in order to better adjust to changing circumstances. What I do know is that rather than invest in or use currently available technologies to make vehicles (I use this term to cover autos, trucks, suv, etc) more fuel efficient they have instead gone for the glamour effect with video systems/stereo systems/interior luxury items.

They gambled and lost instead of playing smart. They could have been raising fuel efficiency rates on their own even as congress debated about this and drilling in ANWAR. They missed a HUGE opportunity after 9/11 when people started to become concerned about MidEast stability and oil supplies to rise fuel standards and to shout that from the mountain tops. You know something like…”We at GM see a changing world and are doing our best to make sure that Americans are getting the most milage possible out of every gallon of fuel.” They could have played on patriotism and gained support of environmentalists too!

By RF

January 4, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Net- and while the US automakers were selling SUV’s with DVD players, Honda was designing hybirds that make our gas mileage look pitiful. It’s sad that the US makers have such a seemingly nonchalant attitude about it all. Ford is the only one I’ve heard even mention a goal for hybrids over the next few years. It’s that kind of ignorance, pride, or whatever it is that will in the long run kill the US auto industry. I love GM products, but they’re not exactly cutting edge for fuel efficiency!

Glad to hear you guys got away and had some fun. Recovery is as much emotional as it is physical sometimes. My dad was out after bypass surgery and he was soooo down in the dumps after a few weeks at home. We had to take turns getting him out so he wouldn’t go nuts. The depression is worse than the acutal illness a lot of times. Good to hear he’s getting better.

By Netbanker

January 4, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

FM…you touched on a topic that most people don’t really want to think about. As much as we’d like to say we aren’t a stratified society and believe in boot straps the truth is we ARE and will likely remain so. Independent academic studies have pretty much proved that for the most part one remains within the economic class into which one is born.

I do believe that there are some radical changes necessary in the business environment. The first thing to look at are the ethical standards of corporate leaders as well as their compensation. I realize that they are working under the economic golden rule, but their greed is killing the very companies that pay them overly generous compensation packages. Corporate reform needs to start at the top. My impression is that the drive for companies to run ‘lean and mean’ only refers to workers and not executives.

I also think that the auto industry is very tied to the oil industry as well as those who’ve led our country for the past few decades. This continues which is why I tend to think that we aren’t seeing more calls for or support of alternative energy projects. I’ll wager most of you didn’t know that the city buses in Hamburg, Germany all run on hydrogen. The hydrogen fuel is produced by wind power. This pilot program will be expanded to all German cities by when I can’t remember but want to say end of decade.

What do we hear in this country about hydrogen? Generally that it takes more fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen than energy from the hydrogen to fuel anything. Why aren’t we hearing about the German pilot program? Why aren’t we using this existing technology to start more hydrogen production? Why? MONEY!! Oil companies currently have it and the other companies don’t.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Bla: Well, you’re bouncing around a lot of different issues here. Which one do you need cleared up first?

Let’s try the estate tax: Why should it MATTER eve if the money WERE taxed twice? Poor, poor little sufferin’ money! What matters is whether the estate itself is taxed twice… and it’s not. Nice try, keep swinging.

Your defense of an airline bailout is “What else can we do?” Well, we could try getting back to regulation of these crucial infrastructure industries instead of falling for the Freidman-on-steroids folly of deregulation as the first, last, and best solution for every market… only to come begging for bailouts and “buy American” programs when the tide turns.

Hurricane Katrine: Yes, the local governments made some minor mistakes—which pale in comparison to the massive, utter incompetence committed at the federal level by another Bush crony who had no clue how to do his freakin’ job. Do I excuse the local governments? No, but this is a Georgia blog—and my vote doens’t affect the state and local governments of Louisiana. So where it counts—the federal level—you bet I’m smacking Bush hard.

Yes, capital gains are—by definition—unearned income. They don’t result from direct labor, but rather from investments. Some wealth you earn through labor; some wealth comes from investment growth, i.e., capital gains. And yes, both earned and unearned wealth SHOULD be taxed. I was simply pointing out how silly it was to comment that “the wealthy can hide their wealth from taxes.” That’s a reason to close loopholes, not do away with taxes on capital gains and estates.

(I note you haven’t touched on the fact that the estate-tax challenge is by and for the very wealthiest 1% of the nation.)

As for GM’s providing jobs—you’re not serious, are you? You don’t honestly expect GM to get credit for “providing jobs” as if it were out of the goodness of their hearts, do you? They exploit the cheapest labor possible, default on pensions, shift risk away to the rest of the country while reaping as much profit as possible (don’t get me started about CEO compensation)… and you expect us to be GRATEFUL for their machinations?

The working class is ALREADY suffering from a corporate-controlled government and its abusive policies that screw workers and consumers. And all the corporate execs can do, in between counting their millions, is whine about “regulatory burdens” (like clean air & water, and workplace safety standards) and outsource as many jobs as possible.

Again I say—screw ‘em.

By FatMoose

January 4, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

NetB,

So, how does this reform come about? Not self preservation; bc those COEs and such have money for a couple of lifetimes. Govmt stepping in would rally a war cry that it is overstepping its bounds.

A mass spiritual awakening? Not going to hold my breath for that…

Have any suggestions that would possible work?

By RF

January 4, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Net- the technology for alternative fuels has existed for some time, but the oil companies have bought up patents and shelved the technology development. When the oil companies see the financial benefit of developing the alternate fuels, it’ll happen. If we can design and produce a cell phone as thin as what we have with the battery life that is capable, doesn’t it stand to reason we could power a car with similar success? The knowledge is out there, we just have to get the oil companies to buy into it.

You are soooo right about corporate reform. It won’t happen soon, but as more companies go belly up, the remaining ones will have to fight to survive, and that may include cutting benefits for the bigwigs. We haven’t had a major financial crisis in this country in a long time and we’re due one to teach some folks the value of a job and earning what you are given.

The exception to the rule about our stratified society is immigration. Many come here from elsewhere and rise up the ladder somewhat. Too many in America don’t move up because they don’t want to work hard enough to get there.

By Netbanker

January 4, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Sorry…that was Munich, not Hamburg…although I think I also read the program has moved on to Hamburg.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Let’s put the silly “double taxation, death tax” nonsense to rest right now so we can focus back on auto makers.

I assume FindLaw is a good enough resource to dispel the myth of “double taxation” that the plutocrats whine about? http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20030220_buchanan.html

By FatMoose

January 4, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

The exception to the rule about our stratified society is immigration. Many come here from elsewhere and rise up the ladder somewhat. Too many in America don’t move up because they don’t want to work hard enough to get there.

Seems “entitlement” is our country’s biggest issue. I see it in my sister, friends, neighbors, fellow bloggers, myself (before I lost everything and then learned to value what I have - and share it)…

By Netbanker

January 4, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Well Moose I think RF has the answer to your question. It will be brought about due to a large scale financial crisis. We do seem to be moving in the direction of the 1920’s when there was a huge divide between the haves and the have nots and very few have enoughs in the middle. The crash of 1929 and the depression changed the economic environment. I do hope that we don’t have that kind of crash, but am concerned we’re headed toward a major recession while our wealthy leaders distract us with abortion and whether the 10 commandments should be displayed in court houses.

RF…you are correct that many of these techonologies have existed for some time. There are other countries using them successfully today and working to further refine them. What I don’t get about the energy companies is that those heavy into oil seem the least likely to be participating in alternative fuel research. If our government was smart they’d be encouraging these firms to do more research with the goal of putting the Saudis out of business or at least when their oil runs out to the turn the tables on them. Talk about some good national security…how about being able to walk away from the middle east all together because we don’t need them? Wouldn’t that be a major boon?

Interesting info on wind production

By RF

January 4, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Yeah, that would be cool to be able to ‘give the Saudis the finger’, but that would require a major restructuring of the oil industry and government control over it. Oil has run our country and thus our government for a long, long time. I don’t think the cozy relationship between the oil companies and the feds will likely change anytime soon, do you? I’m not sure just how much our own government is really going to support alternative fuel research when the oil industry has a lot of folks in Washington ‘on the payroll’ so to speak.

By FatMoose

January 4, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

NetB,

Scary that it will take “rock-bottom” for industries to change their mindset.

Not to throw a wrench in the proverbial windmill {grin}, but there are some interesting models of airflow and how the circular flow from a wind farm could mix the upper and lower air currents, drastically altering the climate for the downwind areas.

I will see if I can locate it for tomorrow.

Just seems there may not be ANY easy answers when talking about energy.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

brian, you need some serious help.

first, it’s unfortunate but clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to estate taxes and double taxation. we were discussing double taxation as it relates to estate tax. you posted a link on findlaw that discusses double taxation of dividends. very different.

the author in the findlaw article is saying that there are really two taxable events giving rise to two different tax bases, thus his support for taxing the money twice. you should note that he’s never saying the money isn’t taxed twice before you receive it, but only that there are two different events (corporate earning and individual earning) that can and should be taxed. in fact, nobody argues that the $$ isn’t taxed twice, but the author rightly raises the point of how much you’re taxed and asks the question, should corps and individuals both be taxed on those earnings? the last is subject of debate.

now, if you were sophisticated, and really understood what the findlaw author was telling you, you could make an argument that the estate tax isn’t really double taxation as well. i would tell you that the money is taxed when i earn it (i.e. when it comes into my estate) and that it’s taxed again when i die, before being transfered to my heirs. that’s twice. my guess is that the findlaw author would say there are two different taxable events that take place: my earning the money to begin with, and my death. now, is death a taxable event? that’s another way of asking the question i posed to you yesterday, which, btw, you avoided, about whether the gov’t should be entitled to the fruits of my labor moreso than my descendants. under our current system, death is a non-taxable event for about 98% of the population. but if you have enough money to make it worthwhile for the gov’t to get involved, your death is a taxable event. i find that inconsistency to be ridiculous.

also, to say that bc the estate tax is paid by only 1-2% of the population, so who cares, is a fool-hardy position. the truth is that the estate tax impacts far more than only 1-2% of the population, but that only a few estates actually end up being subject to the tax. there is an entire estate planning market that engages primarily in minimizing the estate taxes of its clients.

secondly, if you believe that capital gains are “unearned” than you are demonstrating a massive disconnect from basic finance. would you tell a guy who buys a property, hires a crew to fix it up, then flips it for a substantial profit, that his capital gain is “unearned”? would you tell bill gates that the increase in the value of his microsoft shares are “unearned” over the last twenty five years? honestly, your position is preposterous and demonstrates serious financial ignorance.

thirdly, it is not silliness to think that the wealthy shield their wealth from taxes. do you honestly think that when brad pitt gets paid $15mm for a movie, he personally enters $15mm on his W-2 and pays the full amount of individual income taxes on it? please tell me you’re not that dumb. the truth is that people can and often do use corporations to shield wealth, and use their corporations to provide them with only small salaries, thus they owe smaller levels of taxes. since you seem to be too dense to get it, this is not about closing loopholes, it’s about addressing what the internal revenue code taxes. the wealthy successfully shield their wealth from generating too much personal income on their tax return. lots of rich people do this; there’s a whole industry dedicated to it. unfortunately, under our current structure, we don’t tax the wealth that those people have; instead we focus on incomes. it really never occurs to you that our current system targets the upwardly mobile more than it taxes the wealthy bc you and your ilk believe that income is the proper (or at least best) indicator of wealth, when it is obviously not.

fourth, my defense of an airline bailout is that it is vital for the continuation of commerce in this country. plain and simple. when industries that are vital to commerce are damaged by extreme, external factors (note that this is not a “changing of the tides”, that you referenced), it is appropriate for the gov’t to step in. as i said earlier, capitalistic principles are not absolutes for conservatives, despite your narrow-minded misunderstandings when it comes to us and what we believe. furthermore, re-regulating the airline industry after 9/11 would still have required a significant bailout,so your solution is not exactly pragmatic. and if you are in favor or re-regulating critical infrastructure industries, you can kiss goodbye the airtrans and all the other discount carriers of the world. perhaps you are familiar with another gov’t subsidized and regulated infrastructure company named amtrak. and perhaps you are old enough to remember the plethora of telephony services that were available to customers before the breakup of ma bell and the de-regulation of the telephone industry (btw, that was a joke). care to go back to copper pipe or do you prefer fiber optics? before you’re going to re-regulate all these infrastructure industries, give strong consideration to all the consumer choices, innovation, and savings that you’d forfeit. once you do, i’m not so sure you’re happy with re-regulation.

fifth, to say that local gov’t made some minor mistakes when katrina hit is akin to saying uga had some minor problems to start the game the other nite. blame bush all you want, but don’t tell me that you’re being hard on bush bc this is a georgia blog and your opinion doesn’t matter vis a vis local issues in louisiana. in reality, this is a women’s blog, but you seem to have no problem being a male and being on the blog. that is a cowardly cop-out.

As for GM’s providing jobs—you’re not serious, are you? You don’t honestly expect GM to get credit for “providing jobs� as if it were out of the goodness of their hearts, do you?

i don’t have the slightest idea what you’re saying, but you seem to have completely missed my point. i don’t find that surprising. here’s the point - you, the liberal, believe you care so much about the little people, and that i, the big bad modern conservative care more about corporations than i do about the welfare of employees or consumers. but when you say “screw GM” you’re taking a position that is antithetical to helping the little people, you just don’t realize it. when you screw GM, you screw the millions of current and former employees of GM, the suppliers to GM, and all the other businesses that are dependant upon GM. it must be humbling to have the evil, care-only-about-the-corporation conservative point that out to you. unfortunately, your attitude of screw GM is just as intellectually bankrupt as conservatives = bad, liberals = good that you started with. the world isn’t that simple. it’s a shame it took us all day yesterday to come full circle, but hopefully now you’ve learned something positive.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Hello Everyone. Hope everyone had a good new year holiday. The american auto makers have offered an inferior product for a higher price than imports for years. They can do better but won’t. they made their bed, let them lie in it.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Blablabla, I have a crush on you.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Welcome back, Jack.

By Ben Skott

January 5, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Let these inefficient juggernauts slowly die and be replaced with better companies. If they leave a niche, some enterprising American will fill it, and they’ll do it without union intereference. Actually a one-company only union might do a much better job of balancing the interests of workers and managers. Either way Detroit is done, delaying the end with government bailouts of ad campaigns just lengthens the period of creative destruction.

By Chilao

January 5, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

from the News of the Weird Editor:

In 913, 8-7-05, I summarized a Canadian Press article on Toyota’s decision to build a new plant in Ontario instead of Alabama or Mississippi, even though those states were offering much larger tax subsidies, and I referred to reported impressions that Honda and Nissan had of those states’ workforce, who generally require greater training than Ontario workers do. However, I misattributed a statement to a Toyota spokesman when it should have been attributed to a trade association executive, and I will apologize for this error in 915, 8-21-05. On the other hand, there are “journalist” errors, and there are “substantive” errors, and this one is clearly the former. Toyota is not denying that training costs are much higher in Alabama and Mississippi than in Ontario, and Toyota decisionmakers in all probability knew full well of the Honda-Nissan experience when they made their decision to choose Ontario. The “injury” to Toyota was that I erroneously had it making a public statement about something that was surely part of its non-public evidence for choosing Ontario.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

It is good to be back. Rough start.

By Chilao

January 5, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

The original News of the Weird piece:

Least Competent People

Citing the high quality of the workforce in Ontario, Toyota recently decided to build a second plant in the province, even though Ontario was only offering about half the subsidy proposed by Mississippi and Alabama to build the plant in one of those states. According to a July Canadian Press story, a Toyota spokesman said that Nissan and Honda found the workforce in the U.S. South to be untrained and often illiterate. For example, trainers in Alabama had to use pictorials to teach some workers how to use the equipment.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

welcome back, jack.

jbm, i’m blushing. thank you very much. why on earth do you have a crush on me?

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

LOL @ Blablabla… I like the way you debate.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

What I don’t get about the energy companies is that those heavy into oil seem the least likely to be participating in alternative fuel research.

netbanker - this is an intersting point, and something i have noticed as well. the energy companies are the ones most flush with cash to be able invest in alternative energy sources, and instead of milking oil for every last cent, i would think they’d want to keep their leadership position in the energy industry. i don’t follow energy companies too closely, but the only one that seems to be proactive, or at least tells me that they’re proactive, is BP.

someone else made an interesting comment about changing the US off of oil. it will be extremely difficult - look around you - on every third corner is a gas station.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Well, Bla, you’ve certainly made a lot of assumptions, so let me clear a few of your mistakes up for you.

Taxes: Yes, imposing extra taxes on the wealthy is fine in my book. Yes, it’s inconsistent; so what? So are their earnings. What would be UNFAIR and a bad idea are the flat-tax and all-sales-tax ideas floating around to further shield the wealth of the most powerful.

As you’ve noted, the estate tax really isn’t double taxation, except in the trivial sense that ANY random dollar gets taxes numerous times as it circulates through the economy. So the “double taxation� dodge is just that—a dodge. You aren’t taxed when it “enters your estate,� because the SOURCE of that fund—not you or your estate—is the one that pays the tax on it. YOUR estate isn’t taxed until it actually becomes an estate, i.e., your death.

As to whether the government is entitled to the fruits of your labor more than your descendants-—that’s another red herring, because what you’re really arguing is that your descendants deserve a source of income that’s free of taxation… i.e., another dodge for the wealthy.

Serious financial ignorance largely stems from people who buy into the Freidman school of “cutting taxes is always a good idea, right alongside deregulation.â€? I may not be an economist, but I know better than to fall for that stupidity after seeing it so disastrously disproven since the early 80s. (You’re the financial whiz: can you list all the flaws in that “supply-side” idiocy we underwent?)

YES, capital gains are “unearnedâ€? income, because they don’t come from paid labor; it’s one of the two basic categories of income, and I’m surprised someone as “sophisticatedâ€? as you doesn’t get that. Or rather, I’m tickled that the concept—labeling capital gains for what they are—makes you so uncomfortable.

Tax Shelters: I didn’t say it was silly to acknolwedge that they do it; I said it was silly to pretend it’s inevitable, or that we shouldn’t do away with such wealth shields.

You assume that I’m for taxing income only—-you couldn’t be more wrong. You also assume that I think income is the ONLY indicator of wealth; wrong again. I’m well aware of the loopholes that the super-rich use to show empty pockets at tax time: “Sure, I control billions, but I only earned $24,000 in income last year!� is an annual chant ringing down from the heights of power. Whiny, poor-mouthing plutocrats are a tradition in this country, and I’m all for stamping out those loopholes and directly taxing actual wealth rather than just income.

Next, you complain that regulation is a bad idea because there wouldn’t be any low-cost providers (a fundamental error, given the disastrous effect of local/natural monopolies when deregulation happens), and that corporations deserve help because Poor Little Workers will be laid off if the corporations shut down.

But guess what? They’re already being laid off when the corporations move overseas or outsource-—that is, when they’re not being eaten away by benefit cuts, wage and hiring freezes, pension defaults, and all the other betrayals that are already going on in our corporate-operated economy. Talk about narrow-minded misunderstanding…

Finally, you call me a coward for criticizing Bush, but not the state and local authorities for the Katrina mess. But I stand by what I said: the local and state government errors were minor. Bush’s was by far the worst and most significant, as well as the most easily preventable—he could’ve appointed someone competent instead of another unqualified crony, for example.

You, the corporate cheerleader, have completely missed the point (again—-why am I not surprised?). The very EXISTENCE of mega-corporations like GM already hurts the little people; the fact that their financial stumbles will cost some jobs is trivial fallout compared to the damaged they’re already wreaking in our society, both directly (through outsourcing, cutting benefits, etc.) and indirectly (writing legislation to weaker environmental laws, tort protection, and occupational safety standards).

You think you’re making some Grand Revelation when you say GM has a major impact on people’s lives? Heck, I knew that already; and the bad far outweighs the good. What we need is some protectionist tariffs, strict penalties for offshoring, more trust-busting, quite a few smackdowns on corporate criminals (up to, and including, revoking charters), and in general a whole lot MORE government interference in the marketplace to look out for workers and consumers who are being left behind in this grand “economic recovery.”

Let’s hope when YOU file for intellectual bankruptcy that there are still some few, tattered bankruptcy protections available to you. Because your corporate idols are doing their best to dismantle THAT too. Hopefully you’ll learn a little something before then.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis. You would change your tune IF you were in the top 3% of income earners. Dimwit.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Then why are all those “Hollywood Liberals” not on the Repugnicans’ side?

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

I have to say that I do not understand why you two are jumping on Brian Curtis like this. I re-read the blog and his postings; and although there may be minor errors if being myopic - he states things pretty evenly: Face facts: While both parties are corrupt, the Republicans are the party of the wealthy. They serve corporate interests first and foremost, and anyone who earns less than a six-figure income would be a fool to support them.

I agree that the “little people” will take a hit; but they always loose something before gaining their respect/rights: Look to any movement and you will find this to be true. BC is just saying it is worth the hardtimes to rise above it; and I agree.

As for arguments against his; blaas first response was: ha, ha, ha. lol @ brian curtis. seriously, brian, stop drinking someone else’s koolaid and start thinking for yourself. your simple-mindedness is laughable.

And, yes JBM; I have to wonder how you choose whose arguments you find offensive and whose you find admirable: LOL @ Blablabla… I like the way you debate.

Seems there is no integrity on this blog; just a tag, your it game for adults.

Here I go, mixing it up again - but I call em like I see em;)

By kimberly

January 5, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis is right, folks. I’m not an economist (but I am related to a very prominent one) but Brian explains it very well for the simple folks. Read and learn.

You people who talk about “freedom” need to ask “freedom for WHOM?” What people do that affects the lives of others, the economy, and the environments of their communities, like giant Auto manufactuers, SHOULD be regulated and taxed. Otherwise, as we can see now, people get screwed. What people do as individuals that affect only themselves, such as choosing whom to love or growing their own painkillers in the back yard, should be THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

But “conservatives” (just what they are conserving, I’ll never know) want to switch that around: regulate individual behavior (How UN-American is THAT?) and free up the corporate executives to screw whomever they like in the holy name of the sacred dollar.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Anyone who cares what the Hollywood crowd says or does needs to get a life.

Hi Kimberly. :)

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

We the dollar, for the dollar, by the dollar.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, I consider blatant namecalling, berating, degrading, excessive profanity or being condescending to offensive.

That said, I did think Blabla’s comments were slightly toeing the line, as were Brian’s. But, all in all, I have to say that both of them still remained somewhat level-headed in their responses, and stuck to the issues, which I appreciate.

They may not agree with each other, and for this matter, I don’t agree with Blabla, but I like the way he presents his argument, states facts to back up what he is saying, and does so without blatantly attacking his opponent’s character, education, or personal flaws.

Regardless of what you think, I strongly believe that Brian’s and Blabla’s disagreement is one of the less “ugly” disagreements I’ve seen on this blog. And, I get the feeling that if they were debating this issue in person, they could walk away shaking hands, unlike many others I’ve seen here.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

First sentence should read:

“FatMoose, I consider… to be offensive.”

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Anyone who cares what the Hollywood crowd says or does needs to get a life.

But it these elected officials that BC is referring to do care what the Hollywood crowd says - plus many more of them ARE in government. So, does your statement still apply?

We the dollar, for the dollar, by the dollar. And the point is that the holy dollar is sinking fast - as well as the big companies that were making them, and it is just that there are a small few that have enough of them that they wont feel it for a few lifetimes.

Your statements this week seem oxymoronic. No offence;)

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

And by the way, FatMoose, I hardly think anyone was jumping on Brian. Brian held his own, as did Blablabla.

I thought they both did (and are doing) a fine job of debating the subject.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

What elected officials? Do you think Bush gives a rat’s behind what Hollywood thinks? You read way too much in my dollar post. In this country the most important thing is the dollar. Go ahead and offend me, I love it. JBM ain’t seen nuthin yet!

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

JBM,

And it seems you see what you want to see. I repeat: ha, ha, ha. lol @ brian curtis. seriously, brian, stop drinking someone else’s koolaid and start thinking for yourself. your simple-mindedness is laughable.

Was his first reply; whereas, I try a few times to get on the same page before being demeaning.

{Besides my “mother/swallow” comment - which was after being called names for a bit} You just did not like that my simalar comments as Blaas, were directed at you.

Man, this week rocks;) Hope yuz-guyz week is going well too;)

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Do you think Bush gives a rat’s behind what Hollywood thinks?

Yes, plus - His main hollywood are the evangelist group; which are just B-rate actors with too much make-up;)

Good to see you jack;)

By RF

January 5, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Jack’s right— the almighty dollar rules. Walk outside and start throwing hundreds into the wind and see how many people ignore it. Not many, I’ll bet. Look at ‘Fear Factor’ sometimes. Would you seriously be buried alive with worms and rats in a coffin and wait for your significant other to dig you out? I know a few I’d like to leave in there, but I digress. Corporations, like us as individuals, are motivated by profit whatever the course to get it.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Actually, your “mother/swallow” comment wasn’t directed at me, it was at someone else. I don’t remember who, but it wasn’t at me. I found that offensive because it was vulgar, disgusting, and repulsive (TO ME). And, be mindful that everyone who commented on that statement expressed a similar sentiment.

And, as for Blabla’s comment, I won’t defend him, that’s up to him to do. I’ll simply restate what I already stated, which is that he was indeed toeing the line. I still don’t find his comment particularly offensive since it didn’t come across as an attack on Brian himself, but on his position.

I’m a big girl, FatMoose. I can take it as well as I can dish it, so I’m not “more” offended by comments directed at me than I am at those directed at others. I am entitled to feel more offended by some comments than I am by others. For example, you can call me a raving lunatic it wouldn’t bother me one bit. However, if Renee or RF called me one, I’d be offended.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

No matter - not really invested in these debates today;)

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

You rated them “B”? Should be “F”

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

You rated them “B�? Should be “F�

I, for no known reason, find a low grade worse than an F - (B, in movie terms is akin to a D by my perspective)

I can respect a total dismissal of something and therefore getting an F; but a D or C is just lack of commitment to failure;)

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

I, for no known reason, find a low grade worse than an F - (B, in movie terms is akin to a D by my perspective)

I can respect a total dismissal of something and therefore getting an F; but a D or C is just lack of commitment to failure;)

Huh?

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Who’s on first?

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Jack, I was simply pointing out your error.

You said: “You would change your tune IF you were in the top 3% of income earners. Dimwit.”

And I pointed out that many of our society’s top earners—the notorious “Hollywood Liberals”—are NOT on the neocon side. They’re not pushing for deregulation, or tax cuts, even though it would benefit them directly.

So your claiim is, quite simply, false. Whether you agree with the “Hollywood crowd” is irrelevant; they’re rich, and yet they haven’t “changed their tune” as you predict.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

The Hollywood crowd doesn’t live in the “real” world as we know it. They make their money doing movies, not from corp. America. If you think they give a rat’s behind about anyone but themselves, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

actually, brian, you’re the one making massive assumptions about my positions, and my characterizations of yours.

let’s look at a few:

Next, you complain that regulation is a bad idea because there wouldn’t be any low-cost providers (a fundamental error, given the disastrous effect of local/natural monopolies when deregulation happens)

i never said anything close to this. i don’t believe de-regulation of everything under the sun is appropriate. so when you say:

Serious financial ignorance largely stems from people who buy into the Freidman school of “cutting taxes is always a good idea, right alongside deregulation.�

you’re really arguing with nobody.

and if you’d really like to discuss the impact of de-regulation on local monopolies, let’s look no further than the atlanta natural gas market, which was the first retail market to de-regulate in the entire country. being that this is a georgia blog and all, why not look around here for the awful effects of de-regulation on local monopolies.

here’s another one:

and that corporations deserve help because Poor Little Workers will be laid off if the corporations shut down.

find anywhere in my posts where i’ve said that gm should get financial assistance from the gov’t. you won’t find it bc i didn’t say it. in fact, if you look closely, i said the opposite yesterday, that gm is nowhere near needing assistance. again, you’re arguing with nobody.

here’s another:

What would be UNFAIR and a bad idea are the flat-tax and all-sales-tax ideas floating around to further shield the wealth of the most powerful.

nowhere in my posts am making an argument for a flat-tax or an all-sales-tax. although an intelligent person understands alternative approaches before dismissing them. but again, you’re arguing with nobody.

another:

(You’re the financial whiz: can you list all the flaws in that “supply-side� idiocy we underwent?)

i never said i was a financial whiz. perhaps you’re realizing you’re arguing with someone who has far more financial acumen than you do, but that hardly makes me a whiz.

another:

You, the corporate cheerleader, have completely missed the point (again—-why am I not surprised?). The very EXISTENCE of mega-corporations like GM already hurts the little people;

i’m certainly no corporate cheerleader, brian, but i don’t believe the existence of corporations, in and of itself, is the terrible thing that you seem to believe. if not for companies, brian, who would we work for? not everybody can run their own business or work for the gov’t.

yet another:

Finally, you call me a coward for criticizing Bush, but not the state and local authorities for the Katrina mess.

no, brian, i didn’t call you a coward for criticizing bush. here’s what i said: blame bush all you want… i guess reading comprehension just isn’t your thing. you’re a coward for saying that you weren’t criticizing local authorities in louisiana bc this is a georgia blog. that’s a huge cop-out and you know it.

now, considering your retorts to what i actually said…

of course you could say estate proceeds aren’t double taxed any more than money getting taxed multiple times as it cycles through the economy. but that stems from a belief that death is a taxable event and that death is just another event that money encounters as it cycles thru the economy. if that’s your position, i get it, but i vehemently disagree that death should be a taxable event for my estate, regardless of how material my estate is. but i’m all ears, convince me why death is a taxable event for my property…

you said: As to whether the government is entitled to the fruits of your labor more than your descendants-—that’s another red herring, because what you’re really arguing is that your descendants deserve a source of income that’s free of taxation… i.e., another dodge for the wealthy.

if you think that’s my position, fine. but i prefer to think of it as being my property and as my last will and testament, i, and only i, should decide where it goes. my gov’t should have no hand in that.

You think you’re making some Grand Revelation when you say GM has a major impact on people’s lives?

no, of course not, but i’m reminding you of it. of course jobs have been lost overseas. but only an ignorant fool without a grasp of history would think this is a recent phenomenon or that only corporations are guilty of moving jobs to where they can be done most cost-effectively. we used to be an agrarian economy, then a manufacturing economy, then a services economy until now we are laregly a technology-based economy. changes in the form of an economy aren’t driven by corporations, they’re driven by US in a capitalistic society. it’s a natural outpouring of consumers choosing what they want, how much they’re willing to pay for it, and where it makes the most sense to produce it.

in closing, with a comment like this, you really demonstrate true silliness: Let’s hope when YOU file for intellectual bankruptcy that there are still some few, tattered bankruptcy protections available to you. Because your corporate idols are doing their best to dismantle THAT too. Hopefully you’ll learn a little something before then.

this may come as a shock to someone so woefully misinformed as you, but my supposed “corporate idols” didn’t push for the change in personal bankcy laws - financial institutions and banks did. and yes, while they may be corporations, they are very different animals from corporations like gm that we’ve been discussing. furthermore, corporations aren’t too thrilled about some of the recent changes to bankcy law that make retention of key employees more difficult. so again, you’ve demonstrated you really don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

fatmoose - the post of mine that you refer to was in response to brian’s original post that was outrageous in its simple-mindedness. hence it got the response it did.

as his posts outline his position more clearly, we debate more of the finer points.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

And I pointed out that many of our society’s top earners—the notorious “Hollywood Liberals�—are NOT on the neocon side. They’re not pushing for deregulation, or tax cuts, even though it would benefit them directly.

brian, no offense, but the term neocon refers to foreign policy and has nothing to do with fiscal policy. and despite who may believe in the neo-conservative movement, its premises are not exactly new, nor are they what anyone would consider “conservative”.

just figured a guy that is clearly as smart and sophisticated as you should know that.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Bla: No, neocon does not refer only to foreign policy, though that’s a part of it. Anyone who’s a willing participant in the far-right American Empire lunacy and its accompanying rah-rah corporatism is an active neocon… or their tool.

So you’re doing some deliberate misinterpretation on subject-object agreement in order to find points of disagreement now? That’s fine; but you’re the one who was talking about the virtues of deregulation. I didn’t say “financial assistance� to corporations, I said HELP… in any form. And I didn’t say that the existence of ALL corporations was damaging the working class—just the existence of mega-corporations with undue political influence, e.g., GM and the auto-makers. And yes, you did call me a coward for criticizing Bush but not the local authorities; try reading the WHOLE sentence next time.

So it looks like I’m not alone in misinterpretation here, hmm? Now, on to the issues:

Estate tax: ANY transfer of wealth is a candidate for taxation… and your ‘estate’ is just that—a transfer of wealth from one person (you) to your descendants. Once you’re dead, YOU no longer exist; your ESTATE does, and whoever is the beneficiary is receiving another source of income. Ka-ching! Taxable.

Wonderful, wonderful capitalism: Of course it makes the most sense for a profit-driven corporation to go wherever it can make the most profit. Which is exactly why it makes the most sense for the PEOPLE whose lives are affected by those decisions to pull the reins on corporations and tell them what they are and aren’t allowed to do.

The shift from agrarian to manufacturing to service and techology was accommodated largely within our borders by people moving and re-training; with globalization, that’s less of a valid option, so we need the arm of government to prevent corporations from hurting our society in the process of getting more “efficient.�

Bankruptcy: Now you want to draw a distinction between financial institutions and other corporate influences in Congress? Sure, they’re in a different business, but so were GE and AOL, once upon a time. They still have the same vested interest in pushing for worker-hostile and consumer-bashing legislation and policies… and they do so on a depressingly consistent basis.

Once again, you’ve demonstrated that you’re willing to deliberately misinterpret and split hairs to defend the plutocrats… I can’t say I’m impressed.

Yes, my initial statement was simple—but NOT simpleminded. GM, as a politically corrupt and worker-destroying corporate behemoth, deserves whatever misfortune befalls it. I didn’t realize I needed to spell out all the reasons in detail—shouldn’t people already know that corporate corruption is the #1 problem in our government?

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Some refreshers for the short of memory:

[i]bla insists that the estate tax IS double taxation:[/i] “any rudimentary understanding of the estate tax will confirm that the wealth is taxed twice.�

[i]bla supports deregulation:[/i] “you are in favor or re-regulating critical infrastructure industries, you can kiss goodbye the airtrans and all the other discount carriers of the world. perhaps you are familiar with another gov’t subsidized and regulated infrastructure company named amtrak. and perhaps you are old enough to remember the plethora of telephony services that were available to customers before the breakup of ma bell and the de-regulation of the telephone industry (btw, that was a joke). care to go back to copper pipe or do you prefer fiber optics?�

[i]bla comes out as a corporate cheerleader:[/i] “it must be humbling to have the evil, care-only-about-the-corporation conservative point that out to you.�

So who’s jumping to conclusions again?

By Jack

January 5, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Simpleton.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

~Anybody want some popcorn?~

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Brilliant contribution, Jack; I’ll file that next to “dimwit” in the List of Words Jack Can Spell.

By RF

January 5, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

like watching a tennis match between two evenly matched players. Just goes on and on and on. At least they’re being civil, and danged if I haven’t agreed with both of them at times.

Pass the popcorn AND the beer!

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

RF, we’re on the exact same page. And I, too, took note of the fact that they’re being relatively civil.

You can have all the beer, pass me a Strawberry Fanta! LOL!

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

*I, for no known reason, find a low grade worse than an F - (B, in movie terms is akin to a D by my perspective)

I can respect a total dismissal of something and therefore getting an F; but a D or C is just lack of commitment to failure;)*

It was a joke highlighting it being worse doing something halfa$$ed vs not at all.

But that takes a grasp of humor;)

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

But that takes a grasp of humor;)

Geez, FM, do you have to be condescending? Was that sarcasm really necessary? Or did you think that ending it with a winking smiley face would somehow mitigate the arrogant tone?

No need to respond. I’m through with it. You can really act like a jerk sometimes.

By Jim Skoda

January 5, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

This is my opinion. It does not matter what industry we are speaking of, cars, textiles, etc…….. We do not need/nor will it work for the government to tell us how to spend our dollars. The problem is not the government, it is us. When we shop, do we look for American products, or do we look for best price? What I would like the govt. to do would be to simply make it a law that every product sold in the US, would have to declare what country the company is based, what country the parts came from, and where it was assembled. Then, we could choose whether to support American jobs or not. Ideally, we could choose a product that is produced by an American company, assembled in the US, and made with parts from the US. This would be simple to do, perhaps using color codes. The point is, if Americans would be willing to pay a little more, then soon, most of the jobs being outsourced would return and there would be no more shortage of good paying jobs, meaning there would not be so many turning to public assistance in order to survive. The way things are going now, in about 20 years, public assistance rolls will skyrocket and then taxes will have to be raised dramatically to pay for all the entitlement programs. This may not affect you, but it may affect your children or grandchildren if they can’t find a decent paying job in the years ahead!! So, go ahead and buy the cheaper, foriegn products, they are probably great products, like the japenese cars, but every time you buy foreign, you are indirectly costing American jobs, or selling out if you will. Could the American people change all this?? Sure. Will we…. nah, we like our cheap stuff!!!!!

By Jack

January 5, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Thank you Brian. I really apreciate it. You’re a credit to your gender and all humanity. I figured out a long time ago that debating you is and exercise in futility.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Put that in there JUST to prove the point I made earlier - your position on what is offensive is purely based on who’s on what side; and if they agree with you;)

Thanks for being predictable;)

And, as for Blabla’s comment, I won’t defend him, that’s up to him to do. I’ll simply restate what I already stated, which is that he was indeed toeing the line. I still don’t find his comment particularly offensive since it didn’t come across as an attack on Brian himself, but on his position.

I’m a big girl, FatMoose. I can take it as well as I can dish it, so I’m not “more� offended by comments directed at me than I am at those directed at others. I am entitled to feel more offended by some comments than I am by others. For example, you can call me a raving lunatic it wouldn’t bother me one bit. However, if Renee or RF called me one, I’d be offended.

Geez, FM, do you have to be condescending? Was that sarcasm really necessary? Or did you think that ending it with a winking smiley face would somehow mitigate the arrogant tone?

And before you cite: I am entitled to feel more offended by some comments than I am by others.

That is referred to as having no integrity;)

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Jim, I don’t look for American or best price. I look for the best value.

There was definitely a time in my life where buying American was most important to me. And even today, if it came down to all things being equal (quality, size/volume, price, etc.), I would buy American. But, how often is that the case?

Unfortunately, many American products are inferior, and as a consumer who works very hard (haha) for her money, I cannot see myself paying the same or more for a car (or television, or pair of shoes, or suit) that won’t last as long as its foreign competition.

This argument isn’t much unlike the push by many African-Americans to support African-American owned businesses. Or the gay community’s admonishing “family” to buy gay, or Christians encouraging others to buy Christian.

I love my people, and in most cases, I prefer to support my people, keeping my dollars in my community. However, at the end of the day, I have to stretch my dollars as far as they can go and I will not sacrifice value for support.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Yes. I mis-spelled appreciate. Thank you for your patience.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Well then no one has integrity. There isn’t a single person in this world, not just on the blog - but in the world, who won’t feel more offended by negative comments coming from certain people.

My daughter can tell me she hates me; my partner can tell me she hates me. One will definitely offend me more than the other.

The homeless man at 5 Points can call me a stingy b——, and my best friend can call me a stingy b——. One will unquestionably offend me more than the other.

My college professor can call me ugly, or my mom can call me ugly. One will undoubtedly be more offensive to me than the other.

And, for the record, your point is moot - if it can even be considered a point. I never said in my 12:46 that your comment was offensive to me. And, it wasn’t. I just find the unnecessary sarcasm to be annoying.

Again, YOUR COMMENT WASN’T OFFENSIVE TO ME, just annoying.

your position on what is offensive is purely based on who’s on what side; and if they agree with you

To reiterate what I think I alluded to earlier: I do not have a blanket definition of what offends me. I find things offensive on a case-by-case basis. Your comment to whomever about the mother swallowing wasn’t made to me, but I still found it offensive. As did many of my fellow bloggers. It had nothing to do with who was on what side, or who agreed with whom. It was simply a repulsive statement that I found offensive.

For the record, I am rarely “on the same side” as anyone in here. 9 times out of 10, I disagree on the issues, and people’s opinions on the issues. That doesn’t mean I’m offended by the delivery of their opinion. I disagree with much of what Blabla is saying; so by your judgment, I guess I’m offended by Blablabla because he’s on “another” side and doesn’t agree with me.

I guess I’ve been offended by Renee time after time, because we almost always disagree on the issues.

I guess I’m offended by Jack and Whiley, too. We rarely agree.

I’m also offended by Lozen, 72John, Chuck, Zack, NetB., Tim… heck, I’m just offended by everyone here by your account.

Whatever, FM. This discussion is so useless.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

I figured out a long time ago that debating you is an exercise in futility.

Lesson learned.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Whatever, FM. This discussion is so useless.

I totally agree - with the above comment only though.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Careful FM. Hell hath no fury….

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Hush, Jack. Don’t be an instigator.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Careful FM. Hell hath no fury…

Been there and back many times - I think I now have enough frequent flyer miles to go to Tavarua.

Seriously though, I think this is a hoot - and an honor - that she gets so riled by a single comment from me. Sounds like a crush;)

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Your comment Who’s on first? was directed at my posting regarding Fs and Ds, correct?

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I am hardly “riled” up. I simply find your sarcasm annoying. It’s that simple - no more, no less. But, if that gives you the indication that I have a crush on you, that’s fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.

As most here can attest, I tend to use my words, not my actions to express my feelings. When I “e-admire” someone, I tell them directly. I’ve done so to Jack, RF, Blablabla, Renee, NetB., and a couple of others.

No hidden agendas, no secrets, no indirect signals, etc. If I hated you, loved you, or felt somewhere in between… you’d know it.

By Jim

January 5, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

To Just Being Me, Thanks for that response, I don’t blame you for looking for the best value. I do the same, as well as most others I assume. That was my whole point. We, not our Govt. have chosen to find the best value, not support jobs here, I am as guilty as any. All things will not be equal when it comes to price, not when american companies try to pay a living wage, provide benefits and so forth that other countries do not. So, we can pay more, or continue to lose jobs to India, China, etc. Eventually, we will have very few dollars left to find the best value with!! It’s not if but when our country will have a small percentage of highly skilled people doing very well, and the rest will be working for peanuts. But, we will have plenty of foreign products to choose from! But like I said, I am as guilty as anyone.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

I am hardly “riled� up. I simply find your sarcasm annoying.

I wish I knew your Blood pressure right now - because 10-13 paragraphs with all caps embedded sure sounds more serious than simply annoyed.

My comment was also directed at jack; but for some reason he did not react like you did….hmmm.

Seems he really could care less either way - but you like me. You really like me!;)

By Jack

January 5, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

We all love you. I just threw out the Who’s on first cause it sounded appropriate for your post.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Speaking of which… where IS Zack lately? Surely there’s a way to connect the automakers issue to abortion, right?

And Randy! Isn’t this a Christian issue? I’ll bet Jesus preached something about “render unto GM all that you have and more, and yea, there shall be paltry benefits when they Feel like it.”

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I dont mind one bit. Actually, I was hoping that I figured correctly that it was.

See, my “sarcastic” comment was to you too - you just had the sense, as I do, not to let this stuff get you riled. Hoop - There I go saying it again. Maybe I will get 20 paragraphs of no-riledness my way!

See JBM, you do this to yourself;) And I find it interesting that I am up there on your list of people that effect you.

By P.O.O.P.

January 5, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

care to join? Local chapter now forming.

People Offended by Offended People.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Good post Brian. We agree on something!

By ZachNot

January 5, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

There is a way to connect abortion to GM’s problems. If there were no abortions, there would be more people, GM could kick out the unions, reduce wages, and have a healthier income statement.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

I’m guilty of letting posters get me riled up. Over time I have learned it is best to laugh and say “Bless your heart” LOL

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Do you have a People Humored AT offended people?

That way I can be PHATMoose?;)

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

brian -

And yes, you did call me a coward for criticizing Bush but not the local authorities; try reading the WHOLE sentence next time.

brian, i wrote the original sentence. i know what i called you a coward for. are you telling me i don’t know why i said what i said? you can’t possibly be serious.

estate tax: all you’re doing is quoting the law back to me. i’m well aware of the law. regurgitating the law does nothing to explain why death is a taxable event or convince anyone that it should be. there are plenty of examples where wealth or assets are transferred from one entity to another without taxation, so to say that “any transfer of wealth is a candidate for taxation” is a complete fallacy.

[i]bla insists that the estate tax IS double taxation:[/i] “any rudimentary understanding of the estate tax will confirm that the wealth is taxed twice.�

yes, brian, thanks for reminding me that the wealth is taxed twice. nobody is arguing that this isn’t the case. not me, not your author from findlaw. what we’re arguing is whether or not death should be a taxable event, whether or not there is a second event that gives rise to a second tax base. you’re saying that a transfer of wealth from an estate to a descendant should be taxable, and my previous point above shows that wealth transfers are not always, and do not need to always be, taxable events.

of course the wealth is taxed twice, brian, that is the problem, as i see it. i don’t believe wealth transfers from me, or my estate, to my descendants should be taxable (especially only if the value of my estate rises to some pre-determined governmental level).

bankruptcy: i made a distinction between the american expresses of the world and the gm’s of the world bc of the impact of new bankcy laws on corporations versus individuals. the main changes for individuals was driven by credit card companies and benefit the american expresses of the world. many of the changes to bankcy as it relates to corporate reorganizations do not benefit corporations. your insult to me in your earlier post clearly did not indicate an understanding of this distinction. hence i pointed it out to you bc you tried to insult me with an example you didn’t fully understand.

de-regulation: [i]bla supports deregulation:

yes, brian, i support de-regulation in many circumstances but not all. i think i’ve made it clear that i don’t always support de-regulation bc i’ve said so on more than one occasion. for example, i would not support the de-regulation of a natural monopoly such as electricity distribution. however, if you’re such a fan of the little guy, and so anti-megacorporations, than why would you support regulations that allow megacorporations to charge higher prices to consumers for inferior products. look at all the choices we have now in airlines due to de-regulation. look at our choices in telephony. look at the natural gas market here in atlanta both before and after de-regulation. examples abound, both locally and nationally. it doesn’t take an economics degree or much of a grasp of history to realize that de-regulation, over the long haul, tends to provide consumers with greater choices, better service, and lower prices bc of competition and innovation. if you’re such a fan of consumers and the little guy, you shouldn’t be stridently against de-regulation.

[i]bla comes out as a corporate cheerleader:[/i] “it must be humbling to have the evil, care-only-about-the-corporation conservative point that out to you.�

brian, puleeze, i was playing on your inability to see conservatives as anything other than people who place the needs of corporations above everyday citizens and consumers. my point, since you again seem to have missed it, was that your cavalier attitude toward the GM’s of the world demonstrates a lack of care for the little people still working at GM or pulling a pension from GM. to say “screw GM” is to also say “screw the little guy” still depending on GM. the irony is that your so-called evil conservative actually does care about the little guy and pointed it out to you (thus disproving the simple-mindedness of your original post). has GM “screwed” people in the past? of course, but i’m not resigned to screw those remaining, or at least be ignorant of their plight by saying “screw GM”.

The shift from agrarian to manufacturing to service and techology was accommodated largely within our borders by people moving and re-training; with globalization, that’s less of a valid option, so we need the arm of government to prevent corporations from hurting our society in the process of getting more “efficient.�

this is not even close to being an accurate portrayal of history, brian. most agricultural jobs left our country a long time ago. most manufacturing left our country a long time ago. i’m sorry, but you couldn’t be any more wrong in your “version” of history. virtually every toy i had as a kid, long, long ago, was manufactured in taiwan.

shouldn’t people already know that corporate corruption is the #1 problem in our government?

this is your opinion, brian. and while it may be completely obvious to you that this is the greatest problem facing our gov’t today, it is an opinion not shared by many others. i would argue that the biggest problem in our gov’t today is our budget, and the inability to get spending under any kind of control. nobody in the history of the world has ever spent their way to prosperity. we won’t succeed at it either.

i continue to stand by my assertion concerning your original position that conservatives care more about corporations than citizens, while liberals/democrats care about the little guy, is simple-minded and incorrect. nothing you’ve said has persuaded me otherwise, and in fact, you’re doing a great job of confirming my original belief about your simple-mindedness. thank you.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

No hidden agendas, no secrets, no indirect signals, etc. If I hated you, loved you, or felt somewhere in between… you’d know it.

that’s right, baby, and she’s got a crush on me! jbm, you made my day. thoght you should know.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

I read a sad vent from this week when a senior stated that this Christmas he had nobody come see him and received no gifts. I wish I knew him, I would have gone to see him and sent him something. We who have people who love us should be very thankful. I know I am.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Sigh… I’ll try it once more, but then I have to go to a meeting.

I’m glad you figured out what’s being “taxed twice,� you were bouncing around for awhile. So the welfare of the money itself is your concern? You don’t want it to be taxed too often, no matter whose hands it’s in? This is absurd. Try again.

And it’s a bit late to complain about insults; we both know who started THAT policy this week. 8~)

De-regulation: There I must flatly disagree with you; deregulation does not, in practice, result in either improved service OR lower prices. (Not that it matters to conservative economists.) And the vaunted “competition and innovation�? Nobody hates true competition more than conservative plutocrats; this is why they despise unions, for example, and regularly argue for protective legislation and bailouts when the market forces turn against them.

The “little guy�: The best that can be said is that you and I STRONGLY disagree about relative levels of damage caused by mega-corporations and their political influence. Sure, hundreds of my neighbors are about to lose their jobs because of the auto-plant shutdown; but thousands more already HAVE either lost good jobs, or been fired outright, because of their corrupt practices.

Moving operations overseas: The point was that, as we moved AWAY from each type of technology (which moved overseas), there were other opportunities in the new areas that replaced them… right here within our borders. The current outsourcing and offshoring doesn’t do that. For the first time in our history, good jobs are being replaced with BAD ones. Average household incomes are stagnant, the standard of living isn’t improving, the wealth gap is increasing, and the next generation is poised to inherit a disastrous deficit… all thanks to the wisdom of so-called “conservative� policy makers. Talk about ignorance of history….

Evidence that liberals/Democrats take better care of the little guy:

· Liberals: minimum-wage and child-labor laws, USDA and OSHA inspections, environmental regs (which even NIXON signed onto!), union protections, the push for national healthcare, education and infrastructure improvements, civil rights, pensions

· Conservatives: Union-busting, slashing benefits, tax cuts and shelters for the wealthy only, “tort reform,� destruction of Social Security, switching from full-time to part-time jobs to avoid healthcare costs, dismantling public education, pension defaults, bankruptcy restrictions

I’m surprised you can even ask which party is more beneficial to the working class.

And if you still consider this position simpleminded—well, the obvious rejoinder applies.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

By FatMoose

January 5, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Seems like the blog is slowing down to a bog. Pretty boring this week anyways.

Enjoy all, take care, and good day.

By Denise

January 5, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Brian- I think I’m in love.
Maybe I’m just so used to hearing Republican Righties here in Alabama that I’ve forgotten what it’s like to hear liberalism at its best.
I’m a native born Alabamian, and until the influx from Missouri, the state usually voted democratic. I hate living here now.

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

you were right, jack. arguing with him is fruitless. half the time i’m trying to explain reality to him so that he’s adequately armed to have the debate. i had to explain his own findlaw reference to him. even his last post was fraught with factual inaccuricies. sigh.

ok, brian, go on your merry way. if you think it’s sophisticated to present an overgeneralized list of things you believe conservatives and liberals stand for, that’s cool w me. i said all along the world isn’t that simple, but i guess that was wrong. you’re one sophisticated dude. good day, sir.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Blablabla. I’m so glad to hear that. One way or another, I strive to “make someone’s day” every day.

Jack, that is pretty sad. You may not know him, but there are plenty of single seniors just like him that have no family or friends with whom to share Christmas. I could suggest that next year, you call Hands on Atlanta, or call a couple of seniors homes to see who needs an “adopted son”… but, why wait until next Christmas? You can do that any time.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Alabama had an influx from the show-me state? When was this? Denise, you should not hate living there. People from Georgia make fun of Alabama but it is a beautiful state.

By RF

January 5, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

My mom’s family is from Alabama and she’s about as sweet and pretty a southern belle as any you’ll ever meet. Parts of Alabama I love. Which reminds me of a joke…. what do a tornado and an Alabama divorcee have in common?……..either way some guy is losing a trailer!

By HaHa

January 5, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

what do a tornado and an Alabama divorcee have in common?……..either way some guy is losing a trailer!

I heard it differently:

What do a tornado and an Alabama marriage have in common?

Both start off with alot of suck and blow, and by the time its done, somebody’s lost a trailer.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard the only thing good to come out of Alabama is I-20.

By Jack

January 5, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Hey JBM. Want to hear some more elephant jokes? Haha!

By mobeel

January 5, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

blablabla, regarding tort reform, see the ford pinto case from the 1970’s. ford knew they were selling a car in a dangerous condition, did a “cost-benefit-analysis” of the value of a human life that they could expect to have to pay in an expected number of lawsuits versus the cost to fix the car, and determined that it was more “profitable” to just keep selling the car as is and let some people suffer a fiery death in a car with a defective gas tank. so a jury slapped punitive damages (which were ultimately reduced) on them to punish its egregious conduct.

strict punitive damages caps are just a way of giving product makers a tool to easily factor in the cost of killing, maiming and otherwise harming their customers via egregious conduct into their business plans. if they can easily calculate how much fixing a product costs versus knowingly letting a handful of people get harmed (with a punitive damages cap), then they will choose the most “profitable” route. punitive damages are not for rewarding someone who is harmed but for reforming or deterring the wrongdoer from doing it again and are for egregious conduct, not mere accidents.

what kind of punishment is statutorily capped $250,000 for a $50 billion corporation who knowingly sells a death trap to consumers?

By Netbanker

January 5, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Very busy today and haven’t read through the posts today so I’m just going to throw out a Hello and Terrific Thursday to all! May Friday pass quickly into a slow weekend.

By Matt

January 5, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

I thought this entire column was about buying American vs. foreign cars for some reason. Anyway, when was the last time GM and Ford made a CAR that not only drove and lasted worth a damn, but actually LOOKED half-decent? I can’t tell you the last time I saw anything from either manufacturer that wanted me to run into the showroom for a test drive. Now Daimler-Chrysler on the other hand, they are getting their act together. I haven’t purchased an American brand since 1999, and that was a Dodge Durango.

Perhaps if US auto makers weren’t so tied up with union benefits, pay, pensions and other perks, they’d have more money to invest in R&D. And for you socialist liberals out there, don’t give me this CEO/exucutive pay crap. Union employee compensation makes up the majority of expense liability for US automakers, and a CEO’s pay is pennies in comparison to the overall book numbers on compensation. Ever wonder why it always takes GM 5-10 years for a major body design change, whereas say Nissan or Honda do it every 2-4 years? Thank beloved unions who think someone who bolts on four tires or screws in a car seat (hell I can do that) is worth upwards of $100/hr in wages and benefits.

No, I won’t buy American crap until they start spending more on R&D and less on socialist BS like overpaid unions.

By Just Being Me

January 5, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB.

Jack, shoot! I’m a-list’nin

By blablabla

January 5, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

mobeel:

i don’t have a problem with punitive damages. far from it. in fact, i believe them to be a necessity bc i think it is appropriate for there to be punishment handed down in addition to simple and special compensatory damages when the situation merits.

for the record, i don’t support the establishment of caps on punitive damages. i view caps as a weak attempt to get the pendulum of sometimes runaway jury awards to start to swing the other way. while i do think that the pendulum needs to start moving back the other way, i think mandatory limits are a poor way to accomplish the goal and would probably end up doing more harm than good.

companies (and people) need to be punished for doing things that they deliberately know are wrong. but some of the jury awards have been so incredibly high as to cause me concern.

By Ann

January 6, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

I don’t know when I’ve read so many ill-informed opinions. The bottom line is—foreign cars may be built in the US but the profits go back to the homeland be it Japan, Korea, etc. From reading some of these comments, one would think GM and Ford were the only manufacturers making SUV’s. Funny thing, I see a ton of Honda, Toyota, and Nissan SUV’s out plowing around and I know their gas mileage isn’t great. I drive a Pontiac Vibe which is a small SUV and I get 34 mpg and the car has never been back for one repair. All of you out there rooting for the foreign cars, just wait to see what happens to the American economy if GM or Ford goes under. There will be an effect on us to make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

By mobeel

January 6, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

blablabla, these “incredibly high” jury awards are decisions made by a jury. damages awards come from the enlightened conscience of a jury, not from a legislator not involved in the case or a judge. if you have a problem with high damages awards, blame juries, because a jury of your peers, which has nothing invested in a case, is making these decisions. do you think we should do away with juries?

By Lyrazel

January 6, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

WOW! O my goodness! A whole week has gone by and no one has posted mile-long chapters of the Bible!!!! My goodness I am in shock… Happy friday! Keep up the marvelous debates.

PS: Ann your car was made by GM and Toyota to Toyota standards/using Toyota parts…maybe that is why it runs so well, eh?

By Matt

January 6, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Ann-

“All of you out there rooting for the foreign cars, just wait to see what happens to the American economy if GM or Ford goes under. There will be an effect on us to make the Great Depression look like a picnic.”

Talk about an ill-informed opinion! Our economy is an entirely different animal than it was in 1929. Comparing the 1929 economy to today’s economy beast would be like saying that a mouse is the same size as an elephant. Saying that if GM goes under (which it won’t, but it could become smaller) it will make the “Great Depression look like a picnic” is a gross miscaracherization of reality. I cannot believe that someone is so ignorant out there to say that if GM or Ford goes under that we will have 35% unemployment in this nation. You must be a Democrat.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: I know… it’s just not the same without the religious fanatics, is it?

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

no, mobeel, i don’t think we should do away with juries. all i said was that sometimes jury awards are so high as to give me concern. but thank you for repeating the same thing three times within the span of three sentences. that was impressive.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

What car would Jesus drive?

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

A Honda, so they could all be in one Accord.

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

too funny, jbm.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Good one, JBM!

By mobeel

January 6, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

blablabla, so you want “tort reform” but you can’t say what “tort reform” is? equally impressive.

By Renee

January 6, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Too funny, JBM — very good!!

Good Morning everyone!

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

no, mobeel. wrong again. i just don’t believe that doing away with juries and placing strict caps on awards are the exclusive methods of effectuating reasonable tort reform.

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

:-D

Glad to make you all smile. Good Morning, All!

By RF

January 6, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

JBM- LOLOL!!

By Jack

January 6, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Good one JBM :)

By mobeel

January 6, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

blablabla, thanks for your “painfully simplistic” (non) ideas about your “tort reform.” if you’re just spouting someone else’s talking points, just say so. it will save everyone a lot of time.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic….Dave Barry

By Chilao

January 6, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

to repeat everyone else’s, no original post here from me,

Extremely Good One, JBM.

and Jack’s Dave Barry Titanic/Ark comment as well.LOL

By Renee

January 6, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Jack - I like that.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

JBM: But wouldn’t Jesus be more likely to drive a “Christ-ler”?

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Good one, Brian. LOL!

But, if Jesus wants to keep his reputation for being “on time,” he might want to stick with the Honda! LOL!

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

mobeel, please. its ironic that you would call me simplistic for stating i believe there are alternatives to the two simple extremes you presented as it relates to tort reform. if rejecting the simple makes me simple in your mind, fine. so be it, i could care less.

if you haven’t noticed, i’ve said twice that high jury awards have given me concern. if you really wanted to know what i think, you might ask me why i feel that way. but here’s the truth - if i had really wanted to get into a tort reform discussion with you on a lazy, hung over friday morning, i would have volunteered my opinion myself. but i don’t; i’ve said plenty on the blog this week, so just take the hint.

and if you see a blueprint for anything that i’ve said on this blog on somebody else’s talking points, let me know, so i can sue them for stealing my non-ideas. thanks.

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

A college kid walks up to his dad and says “Dad, I really could use a car; could you help me with the downpayment and such?”

His dad replies: “Well son, if you do some things, I will get you a car. 1) Get your grades up to Bs or higher, 2) Get some type of job 3) Cut your hair, and 4) Read the bible once a day”

The son replies that he will consider the deal and get back with him soon.

Durring the next visit from college, the kid approaches his dad and says: “Dad, I been meaning to talk to you about the car deal. I have gotten my grades up to one B and the rest As. I am working at the school bookstore; and while there - I am reading the bible quite a lot. But as far as the cutting of my hair, I found in the bible that Jesus himself had long hair. So, what gives?”

The dad replies: “Keep reading, and you will see Jesus walked everywhere.”

Good day all.

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

brian, you do have a sense of humor. very nice.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Good one FM

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

hysterical, fm. i’ll have to remember that.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Another joke, since Friday seems to be a slow day for discussion:

A woman calls a dishwasher repairmen with instructions for stopping by her house while she’s at work. She tells him where to find the key, what problem she’s having with the dishwasher, and where to leave the invoice.

“But I should also warn you,� she says, “about my pets. I have a very large, ferocious dog, but he won’t bother you. The important thing is that you do NOT talk to my parrot. Remember that; it’s very important that you DON’T talk to the parrot.�

The next day, the repairman shows up and everything is as she described. The living room rug is occupied by a large, nasty-looking dog with enormous teeth, but it just watches him as he enters and begins his repairs.

The parrot, on the other hand, is a loud and constant talker; it berates him for hours with insults, swearing, and snide remarks until the repairman is fed up and shouts, “Shut up, you stupid bird!’

The bird replies, “Get him, Spike.�

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

One of my favorites - and few that can be posted;)

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Hilarious, BC!!!

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

A georgia woman decides to take a milk bath for her skin.

She asks the Schwans delivery man for 100 gallons of milk.

He askes, “Would you like that milk pasteurized?”

She replies, “No, Just up to my b00bs will be fine;)”

(may have to read aloud to get it;)

By Renee

January 6, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Good One Brian.

Okay here’s mine.

Why I fired My Secretary…

Last Week Was My Birthday And I Didn’t Feel Very Well Waking Up that Morning. I Went Downstairs For Breakfast Hoping My Wife Would Be Pleasant And Say, “Happy Birthday!”, And Possibly Have A Present For Me. As It Turned Out, She Barely Said Good Morning, Let Alone “Happy Birthday.”

I Thought… Well, That’s Marriage For You, But The Kids Will Remember. My Kids Came to Breakfast And Didn’t Say A Word. So When I Left For The Office, I Was Feeling Pretty Low And Somewhat Despondent.

As I Walked Into My Office, My Secretary, Jane, Said, “Good Morning, Boss, Happy Birthday!” It Felt A Little Better That At Least Someone Had Remembered. I Worked Until one O’clock and Then Jane Knocked On My Door And Said, “You Know, It’s Such A Beautiful Day Outside, And It’s Your Birthday, Let’s Go Out To Lunch, Just You And Me.”

I Said, “Thanks Jane, That’s The Greatest Thing I’ve Heard All Day. Let’s Go!” We Went To Lunch. But We Didn’t Go Where We Normally Would Go. We Dined Instead At A Little Place With A Private Table. We Had Two Martinis Each And I Enjoyed The Meal Tremendously

On The Way Back To The Office, Jane Said, “You Know, It’s Such A Beautiful Day.. We Don’t Need To Go Back To The Office, Do We?”

I Responded, “I Guess Not. What Do You Have In Mind?”

She Said, “Let’s Go To My Apartment”

After Arriving At Her Apartment Jane Turned To Me And Said, “Boss, If You Don’t Mind, I’m Going To Step Into The Bedroom For A Moment. I’ll Be Right Back.”

“Ok.” I Nervously Replied.

She Went Into The Bedroom And, After A Couple Of Minutes, She Came Out Carrying A Huge Birthday Cake… Followed By My Wife, Kids, And Dozens Of My Friends And Co-Workers, All Singing “Happy Birthday”.

And I Just Sat There..

On The Couch…

Naked.

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Funny stuff.

This blog might be more usefull as a joke trader;) Or we should segue to jokes when it get heated…Nice change.

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

HILARIOUS, Renee!!!!!!!!

By RF

January 6, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

A man walks into a shabby old bar, gets a drink, and asks the bartender if he wants to see something interesting. Onto the bar he places a miniature piano. The bartender says “that’s interesting”.

“Just wait” replies the man and places a twelve inch tall man on the counter who begins to play the piano with great skill.

“that’s really interesting” says the bartender. “Where’d you get that?”

The man pulls out a lamp and tells the bartender to rub it. Out pops a genie who says “I will grant you one wish”

The bartender looks around at his shabby old bar, thinks a moment and says “I want a million bucks”. Suddenly the bar is full of a million DUCKS. The bartender looks at the man in astonishment and asks “Is that genie a little hard of hearing or what?”

“You think I really wished for twelve inch pianist?” replies the man…

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

LOLOL!!!

I love this! Keep ‘em coming! What a perfect way to end the week.

By Alabama

January 6, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

At the 1997 World Women’s Conference the first speaker from England stood up:

“At last years’ conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well, after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb.” The crowd cheered.

The second speaker from France stood up: “After last years’ Conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well.” The crowd cheered.

The third speaker from Alabama stood up: “After last years’ Conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his cooking, cleaning or shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye.

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

ROFL!!!!

By Jack

January 6, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

A woman went to the doctor’s office where she was seen by one of the younger doctors. After about 4 minutes in the examination room, she burst out, screaming as she ran down the hall. An older doctors stopped her and asked what the problem was and she told him her story. After listening, he had her sit down and relax in another room.

The older doctor marched down the hallway to the back where the young doctor was writing on his clipboard. ” What’s the matter with you?” the older doctor demanded. “Mrs. Reid is 62 years old, has grown children and 7 grandchildren and you told her she was pregnant?”

The younger doctor continued writing and without looking up said,”Does she still have the hiccups?”

By SmartBlonde

January 6, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

SMART BLONDE JOKE

A blonde walks into a bank in New York City and asks for the loan officer.

She says she’s going to Europe on business for two weeks and needs to borrow $5,000.

The bank officer says the bank will need some kind of security for the loan, so the blonde hands over the keys to a new Rolls Royce.

The car is parked on the street in front of the bank, she has the title and everything checks out. the bank agrees to accept the car as collateral for the loan.

The bank’s president and its officers all enjoy a good laugh at the blonde for using a $250,000 Rolls as collateral against a $5,000 loan.

An employee of the bank then proceeds to drive the Rolls into the bank’s underground garage and parks it there.

Two weeks later, the blonde returns, repays the $5,000 and the interest, which comes to $15.41. The loan officer says, “Miss, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out and found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”

The blond replies…..”Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $15.41 and expect it to be there when I return?”

By RF

January 6, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

So, what do you call a genius in Alabama?

A visitor!

By LARRY

January 6, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

I CAN REMEMBER BUYING A TOYOTA IN THE EARLY 70’S AND EVERYONE GOT ON MY CASE ABOUT NOT BUYING AMERICAN. I TOLD THEM WHEN THE AMERICAN CAR MAKERS COULD BUILD A CAR THAT WAS RELIABLE AND GOT GOOD GAS MILEAGE, I WOULD GLADLY BY AMERICAN. BUT THE AMERICAN CAR MAKERS HAVE, BUT UNTILL RECENTLY, STILL DONT GET IT!!! ALSO, THE UNIONS ARE A PROBLEM AND THE EXECUTIVES ARE AT FAULT. THE WORD IS “GREED”. WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL GRAD MAKING $70,000 A YEAR AND MANAGEMENT MAKING MILLIONS FOR DOING NOTHING. AND ALSO, REMEMBER BACK IN THE 70’S WHEN CHRYSLER AND IACOCA HAD THE GOVERNMENT BAIL THEM OUT. IACOCA DID TV ADS FOR THE K-CAR WITH THE HOOD OPEN SHOWING THE ENGINE IN RED,WHITE AND BLUE. THE ENGINE WAS A MITSUBISHI. AMERICAN BUSINESS GREED AND THE PUBLIC GREED HAS SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY

By SpeakingofCorporate

January 6, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

READ THE FOLLOWING SIX STATEMENTS AND THE AMAZING CONCLUSION THEY LEAD TO:

AMAZING CONCLUSION: The higher you are in the corporate structure, the smaller your balls become.

By Denise

January 6, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Ya know, the area I live in has a higher per capita income than most areas. I’m a Huntsville native…. I don’t personally know anyone who owns a trailer or hasn’t sued their ex-hubby for everything if he got caught hitting her (if he did get caught, then the po-po’s took him out back and beat him already).

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

RF, SmartBlonde and Jack: HILARIOUS!!!

keep ‘em coming!

By amber

January 6, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Well, I was impressed with the nastiness of Blablabla’s very first response to Brian this week … “simple minded, koolaide”. He’s definitely the one who started the insults. Why do conservatives have to be so mean-spirited and confrontational with anyone who disagrees with them? I do like the jokes… keep em comin’!

By Jack

January 6, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Did you know that Captain Hook died of jock itch?

By Denise

January 6, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

One beautiful December evening Huan Cho and his girlfriend Jung Lee were sitting by the side of the ocean. It was a romantic full moon, when Huan Cho said …”Hey baby, let’s play Weeweechu.”

“Oh no, not now, let’s look at the moon” said Jung Lee.

“Oh, c’mon baby, let’s you and I play Weeweechu. I love you and its the perfect time,” Huan Cho Begged.

“But I rather just hold your hand and watch the moon.”

“Please Jung Lee, just once play Weeweechu with me.”

Jung Lee looked at Huan Chi and said, “OK, we’ll play Weeweechu.”

Huan Cho grabbed his guitar and they both sang….

“Weeweechu a merry Christmas, Weeweechu a merry Christmas, Weeweechu a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.

I know where your mind was, and I am shocked, truly shocked.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Ldet me crawl from the gutter.

By Alabama

January 6, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

It is important to note that Huntsville is the most progressive city in the state, due to its highly-educated population and cultural diversity of same.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

One should look at Mississippi before poking fun at Alabama. Additionally, isn’t Georgia behind Alabama and Mississippi in SAT scores?

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

How do you know an elephant has been in your refridgerator? Footprints in the butter.

By Renee

January 6, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Dear Husband:

I’m writing you this letter to tell you that I’m leaving you for good. I’ve been a good woman to you for seven years and I have nothing to show for it. These last two weeks have been hell. Your boss called to tell me that you had quit your job today and that was the last straw. Last week, you came home and didn’t notice that I had gotten my hair and nails done, cooked your favorite meal and even wore a brand new negligee. You came home and ate in two minutes, and went straight to sleep after watching the game. You don’t tell me you love me anymore, you don’t touch me or anything. Either you’re cheating or you don’t love me anymore, Whatever the case is, I’m gone.

P.S. If you’re trying to find me, don’t. Your BROTHER and I are moving away to West Virginia together! Have a great life!

Dear Ex-Wife

Nothing has made my day more than receiving your letter. It’s true that you and I have been married for seven years, although a good woman is a far cry from what you’ve been. I watch sports so much to try to drown out your constant nagging. Too bad that doesn’t work. I did notice when you cut off all of your hair last week, the first thing that came to mind was “You look just like a man!” My mother raised me to not say anything if you can’t say anything nice. When you cooked my favorite meal, you must have gotten me confused with MY BROTHER, because I stopped eating pork seven years ago. I went to sleep on you when you had on that new negligee because the price tag was still on it. I prayed that it was a coincidence that my brother had just borrowed fifty dollars from me that morning and your negligee was $49.99. After all of this, I still loved you and felt that we could work it out. So when I discovered that I had hit the lotto for ten million dollars, I quit my job and bought us two tickets to Jamaica. But when I got home you were gone. Everything happens for a reason I guess. I hope you have the filling life you always wanted. My lawyer said with your letter that you wrote, you won’t get a dime from me. So take care.

P.S. I don’t know if I ever told you this but Carl, my brother was born Carla. I hope that’s not a problem.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

There are but two reasons for drinking:

W.C. Fields

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Good one Renee’

By chuck

January 6, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

I know this response is a couple of days late, but I just had to address Brian Curtis’ post about the death tax and capital gains tax. He points to an article in findlaw, which I went to and read. It is about the stupidest attempt that I have ever read to justify DOUBLE TAXATION. In part, this is what the dufus Buchanan wrote:

Let’s be blunt: Would you rather pay 10% income tax twice a year, or 50% income tax once a year? If you oppose “double taxation,” then apparently you’d be happier paying the larger tax once. Obviously, though, no sensible person would make such a choice. We care how much money we have left to spend after we pay our taxes.

The activity he describes here is NOT double taxation. He is comparing paying a 20% tax in 2 payment to a 50% tax paid in one payment. That is just stupid.

I have NO PROBLEM taxing dividends IF we quit taxing corporations. When you think about it, that makes good sense. Not only would it eliminate about a third of what congress does, (creating loopholes for individual businesses or industries), but the level of taxes would remain somewhat constant because dividends would increase from profits that used to paid out in taxes. On the other hand, if we continue taxing earnings from corporations and then taxing those same earnings after they are distributed to stockholders, it is indeed double taxation.

Buchanan gave another asinine analogy of “double taxation” that equated federal and state taxation of income to “double taxation”. That is a typical apples and oranges argument. Double taxation is ONE entity taxing the SAME income twice. Clearly his argument breaks down under scrutiny.

The death tax is also double taxation. It is akin to the government taxing my savings account. Let’s say that I earn money this year and sock it away into a savings account. As income, that money has already been taxed. I would not have to pay any additional tax on that income at all. I would have to pay tax on any interest earned because that would be NEW income. If I die and that money is still in that bank account or in other assets, WHAT NEW INCOME HAS BEEN PRODUCED? The answer is NONE. Ownership of those assets has changed, but the ONLY thing that should be taxed is

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

A rope (yes a rope) walks into a bar and orders a beer (yes a beer).

The bartender says “Hey, Youre a rope! We dont serve ropes here! Get out!”

The next day, the rope enters the bar and orders a Beer (yes a beer).

The bartender repeats “Hey, Youre a rope! I said we dont serve ropes here! Get out!”

One the third day, the rope breaks apart his ends, makes a loop - sliding one end through, and tightens. After which, he enters the same bar and says “Give me a beer!”

The bartender says “Hey, Arnt You that same rope! I told you we dont serve ropes here!”

In which the rope replies “Nope. Im a frayed knot!”

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Chuck. I agree with you. Is the sky falling?

By Renee

January 6, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Subject: ATM A sign in the Bank Lobby reads: “Please note that this Bank is installing new Drive-through teller machines enabling customers to withdraw cash without leaving their vehicles. Customers using this new facility are requested to use the procedures outlined below when accessing their accounts.

After months of careful research, MALE & FEMALE procedures have been developed. Please follow the appropriate steps for your gender.

MALE PROCEDURE:

FEMALE PROCEDURE:

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

OMG. Look out everyone!!!!

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

ROFL Renee! That was good… but, you better hope Whiley doesn’t hear it!

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Well, I guess the jokes are on hold.

Ownership changing is what we call a “transfer of assets,” Chuck; in other words, a taxable transaction.

Once you’re dead, “you” don’t own that money any more because you no longer exist. The recipients get it, as another source of income… just as if you’d bought bread at a grocery store, your money goes to someone else and tax is taken out of the transaction.

I don’t see what’s so complicated about this issue. When you die, your money goes to someone else—just like it does when you buy something while you’re still alive. Since they’re getting your money in an income transaction, a tax can be applied.

As for not taxing corporations… I’m afraid that’s a terrible idea. Corporate taxes, despite the broadening of stock ownership through 401(k) plans, still affect the well-to-do more than anyone else—which is precisely why the wealthy are so infuriated by them. Yes, the costs of those taxes are generall ‘spread around’ by corporate practices: affecting wages and benefits, end costs to consumers, and the like. But the main impact is still on stock owners, making it one of the most progressive taxes around.

And that has been shrinking as more and more corporations find ways to evade the paltry sums they DO have to pay. As of 2003, tax revenues from corporations fell to a low of 7.3%, or 1.3% of our GDP (down from a high of about 5% of GDP during the “golden age” of the 1950s).

Well over half of U.S. corporations wind up paying no federal taxes at all… and the extensive loopholes and dodges available to them just keep getting expanded by their bought-and-paid-for tools in Congress. U.S. corporations already pay lower taxes here than in any other civilized nation.

To make up the gap, payroll and income taxes have been increasing… in other words, the money’s coming directly from you and me, rather than focusing on the wealthy. That’s what makes payroll taxes “regressive.” And that, in turn, is largely responsible for the widening wealth gap between rich and poor that we’ve been experiencing over the past few decades: the rich are paying less, and the rest of us are paying proportionally more.

Closing loopholes and abolishing shelters is one approach to fixing that problem… but abolishing taxes on corporations, which are another good progressive-taxation tool, would only make things worse. (Cutting wasteful spending would be even better, naturally; but does anyone want to place odds on THAT happening?)

Sorry to be such a downer as we head into the weekend.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

A guy walks into a bar with his pet monkey. He orders a drink and while he’s drinking, the monkey jumps all around the place. The monkey grabs some olives off the bar and eats them. Then he grabs some sliced limes and eats them. He then jumps onto the pool table and grabs one of the billiard balls. To everyone’s amazement, he sticks it in his mouth, and somehow swallows it whole.

The bartender screams at the guy, “Did you see what your monkey just did?”

“No, what?”

“He just ate the cue ball off my pool table… whole!”

“Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me,” replied the guy, “he eats everything in sight. Sorry! I’ll pay for the cue ball and stuff.”

The guy finishes his drink, pays his bill, pays for the stuff the monkey ate and leaves.

Two weeks later the guy is in the bar again, and has his monkey with him. He orders a drink and the monkey starts running around the bar again.

While the man is finishing his drink, the monkey finds a maraschino cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his butt, pulls it out, and eats it.

Then the monkey finds a peanut, and again sticks it up his butt, pulls it out, and eats it. The bartender is disgusted. “Did you see what your monkey did now?”

“No, what?” replied the man.

“Well, he stuck a maraschino cherry and a peanut up his butt, pulled them out, and ate them!” said the bartender.

“Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me,” replied the guy. “He still eats everything in sight, but ever since he had to pass that cue ball, he measures everything first.”

By Renee

January 6, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

good one Jack!

I know JBM!!! I was JUST thinking that, lol.

By Gary

January 6, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Brian,

It’s not really the same as exchanging money for a product. My Dad died, I got his assets…he didn’t get a loaf of bread though. There’s no supply and demand dynamic involved in the death tax. It’s a transaction yes, but there’s really no justification for me paying taxes on income my father already paid taxes on.

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

LOL! So cute!

Hey Brian/Chuck:

And DON’T get into a long dissertation, I just want a simple answer to satisfy my curiosity. What’s it called when a restaurateur purchases food from a wholesale dealer, pays tax on it, then resells the food to a customer, who also pays tax?

By Jack

January 6, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

JBM. It is called “getting screwed by the government”

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

amber,

i could think of plenty worse insults to hurl at people. calling brian simple-minded and accusing him of drinking the koolaid was pretty mild, as insults go on the street and on this blog go.

even a cursory review of the last several months of this blog will turn up much more provacative and insulting commentary coming both to and from liberals and religious conservatives. at the risk of being mean-spirited, let me suggest that you remove your rose-colored glasses before reading the blog. it may give you a more even-handed view of things.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Back to the jokes:

Two drunks are in a bar at the top of a Manhattan skyscraper, arguing about the quirky weather New York gets.

The first declares blurrily, “I hear that it’s all these buildings close together that messes up the air masses. All the heat down at the street level rises up in these narrow gaps between the buildings—-whoosh! Put out your hand, you can feel the updraft. In fact, on a stormy night like tonight, the wind is so strong… it could actually hold a man up in midair!�

“Pshaw,� the second declares. “I’ll believe it when I see it.�

Offended the first drunk gets to his feet. “Oh yeah? Watch this.� And before anyone can stop him, he rushes to the window and steps out…

…only to remain hovering there, in midair, 40 stories above the streets below. Grinning, he climbs back in.

The second drunk is amazed. “Thash’ amazing! I gotta try that.� And he stumbles to the window and likewise jumps—falling to a long, agonizing death on the hard concrete below.

Shaking his head, the bartender turns to the first drunk. “Damn… you’re one mean drunk, Superman.�

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

JBM:

I’d call that a typical series of transactions. Money changes hands countless times as it passes from one owner to another: from a bank to your employer, then to you, then to a store, which then goes (in part) to the store’s employees, etc.

At any one of those points (or more), a transaction tax can occur. It’s only ‘double taxation’ if the same person pays twice, without any transfer of ownership.

By Jack

January 6, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Good one Brian. Reminds me of the one about Superman and Wonderwoman. That one will have to wait until next week. Everyone have a good weekend!!

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

And keep in mind there are different types of taxes: retail/sales tax, income tax, payroll taxes, dividend and capital gains taxes, and so on… not to mention state, federal, and local. Taxing isn’t a one-time event, nor does it all go to the same fund.

By Renee

January 6, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

u 2 jack!!!!!!!!

By lozen

January 6, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Jokes are great….! Just one serious note today: Am I the only one bothered by the fact that if Alito is confirmed, he will be the fifth catholic justice on the Supreme Court? Also we’ll have a supreme court with one female judge and eight male judges! (The canadian supreme court has four women justices, including its chief justice.) Alito has ruled against the separation of church and state more than once. And he will do whatever is necessary to end the choice women now have to determine their reproductive freedom. Religious arch conservatives are going to bat for him big time. Who is opposing this man?

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Brian, I know it’s typical… and I know it’s not double taxation… was just curious as to whether it had an assigned term. I like what Jack called it. I think I’ll stick with that.

By RF

January 6, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Too funny, Renee!!!!

Brian- my parents are now receiving social security after retiring. They paid SStax for forty years. Now they are also taxed on 85% of the SS earnings. Is that double taxation? Seems to me if the gov’t took the tax money and then taxes you after giving some back to you, that’s double taxation. It’s like being taxed on last year’s state refund. I already paid the taxes and this is my overpayment being returned to me. Then I have to include it as income the next year. What a hoot!

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

RF: You’d have to ask a finance person, but I know my SS and 401(k) deductions are from pretax income. And they’re classified as just that: deductions, rather than tax.

In principle, the difference is supposed to be that the deducted funds do not go into government checking accounts, but rather into a reserve fund (which is why IRAs and the 401k are in the same category). So they ‘don’t exist’ as income for you yet—not until you actually receive the proceeds after retirement.

But that’s all in theory. We know what the government really does with your Social Security money… (sniff)… anyone smell smoke?

By Just Being Me

January 6, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Lozen:

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that if Alito is confirmed, he will be the eighth caucasian justice on the Supreme Court? Also we’ll have a supreme court with one one black judge and eight caucasian judges!

By RF

January 6, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

They give it away in excess!! That and pay senators and congressmen unbelievable salaries!

Pretty amazing when you think about the tax cycle at work. All the different taxes we pay, and my county can’t pave borken roads, the state can’t pay for education, and the feds are in red ink. Hmmmm…

By Netbanker

January 6, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

OIY…working again, but hello! Jack..why WOULD Jesus drive a car? Can’t He just apparate?

By chuck

January 6, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

I know this response is a couple of days late, but I just had to address Brian Curtis’ post about the death tax and capital gains tax. He points to an article in findlaw, which I went to and read. It is about the stupidest attempt that I have ever read to justify DOUBLE TAXATION. In part, this is what the dufus Buchanan wrote:

Let’s be blunt: Would you rather pay 10% income tax twice a year, or 50% income tax once a year? If you oppose “double taxation,” then apparently you’d be happier paying the larger tax once. Obviously, though, no sensible person would make such a choice. We care how much money we have left to spend after we pay our taxes.

The activity he describes here is NOT double taxation. He is comparing paying a 20% tax in 2 payment to a 50% tax paid in one payment. That is just stupid.

I have NO PROBLEM taxing dividends IF we quit taxing corporations. When you think about it, that makes good sense. Not only would it eliminate about a third of what congress does, (creating loopholes for individual businesses or industries), but the level of taxes would remain somewhat constant because dividends would increase from profits that used to paid out in taxes. On the other hand, if we continue taxing earnings from corporations and then taxing those same earnings after they are distributed to stockholders, it is indeed double taxation.

Buchanan gave another asinine analogy of “double taxation” that equated federal and state taxation of income to “double taxation”. That is a typical apples and oranges argument. Double taxation is ONE entity taxing the SAME income twice. Clearly his argument breaks down under scrutiny.

The death tax is also double taxation. It is akin to the government taxing my savings account. Let’s say that I earn money this year and sock it away into a savings account. As income, that money has already been taxed. I would not have to pay any additional tax on that income at all. I would have to pay tax on any interest earned because that would be NEW income. If I die and that money is still in that bank account or in other assets, WHAT NEW INCOME HAS BEEN PRODUCED? The answer is NONE. Ownership of those assets has changed, but the ONLY thing that should be taxed is additional INCOME produced by those assets.

As for your diatribe against lowering taxes, EVEN JFK knew the impact of lowering taxes on both the economy AND revenue. Everytime the marginal rate has been lowered, the economy has grown in record amounts and revenue to the federal government has increased as well. It doesn’t take an economist to understand that.

By chuck

January 6, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

BTW Brian Curtis,

in·come
n. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

By blablabla

January 6, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Good one Brian. Reminds me of the one about Superman and Wonderwoman. That one will have to wait until next week. Everyone have a good weekend!!

jack, are you talking about the one with the invisible man?

By FatMoose

January 6, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

And I know there is little sympathy for smokers (even by me and I smoke - it is a choice we make, not really a right)

Ciggarettes get the heck taxed out of them, hence why they are $5+ a pack in some states. But when you buy them, you pay tax ON that tax.

The govmt sure is squirrely.

By LARRY

January 6, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis and everyone, the whole taxation problem could be solved with a “Fairtax”. But our elected officals don’t have the balls to do the right thing. Also, don’t give me the fairtax thing want work.

By Denise

January 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Social Security and other similar amounts are taken out “pretax” so that you do not incur payroll taxes on them, however they are included in the gross wages total for income tax. You are being taxed on them. :-)

The Alabama Accountant.