Big Labor, ‘looking for revenge,’ expects to dump $300 million into 2014 elections

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LouisCypher
 


I agree, I was against any bailout as we all know that it was nothing but a take over of tax dollars and we are still paying for those bailouts, now they are call QEs.




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by neo96
 


Well I guess we will have to wait and see, but remember it was under Bush that they got the bailout not Obama if I am no mistaken neo.



Bush you say ?

Wonder why Obama took the credit for 'saving the auto industry'.

www.politifact.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


If I am no mistaken it was under Bush that the bailouts were originated but it was under Obama that the bailouts were allowed to stay, he didn't do anything to stop them, Bush signed the 17.4 billions to the industry.

Automotive industry crisis of 2008–10

en.wikipedia.org...–2010

Obama tends to take credit for somethings that Bush started or approved and blame Bush for his own failures this days.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 





Obama tends to take credit for somethings that Bush started or approved and blame Bush for his own failures this days.


Oh yeah


Ole GW gets all the blame,and Obama comes out smelling like 'roses'.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I got the feeling that is going to be a lot of Wall street money going into Republicans campaign funds for next elections, as Republicans seems to be very fond of corporate America and were the ones that dared to take money from tax payers to pay for their mistakes.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by neo96
 


I got the feeling that is going to be a lot of Wall street money going into Republicans campaign funds for next elections, as Republicans seems to be very fond of corporate America and were the ones that dared to take money from tax payers to pay for their mistakes.



Corporations give both sides ALOT of cash.

Democrats have unions,corporations, and 'people' like the 2 billion dollars the current potus raised.

Republicans have corporations, and 'people' unions hardly ever, and lost out to Democrats last 2 times.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Is going to be a turn around this elections, that is why Democrats can not wait to give amnesty to illegal immigrants in the nation at the expenses of the working class.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

buster2010

LouisCypher

xuenchen
Big Labor, ‘looking for revenge,’ expects to dump $300 million into 2014 elections



Revenge? They going to take out adds against themselves for their own crappy decisions over the past decades? Maybe they get start by getting 'revenge' on their own leadeship who put them in this fix as they vote at VW showed that many of the nay voters stated that they did not want to end up like Detroit due to poor policy by the union.


You may want to check your facts. It wasn't the Unions that killed Detroit it was Reagan and the big three that killed Detroit. Reagan waged war on the unions and the big three kept building gas guzzlers during the gas shortage. The unions voted to cut their pay to help the automobile companies and the companies still went under because they wouldn't change their policies. Lay the blame where it really belongs.


how can you say that the the big three killed detriot because they kept on making gas guzzlers. or for that mattter regan wageing war unions. don't you remember all the crappy cars that came out during the 80's.

first the 1979 / second oil crisis was over by middle of 1980, and gas price dropped. most of the reason for that was the iraq/iran war.



After 1980, oil prices began a 20-year decline, eventually reaching a 60 percent fall-off during the 1990s. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded production; the USSR became the top world producer; and North Sea and Alaskan oil flooded the market. 1979 energy crisis





At the same time, Detroit's then-Big Three automakers (Ford, Chrysler, GM) were marketing downsized full-sized automobiles like the Chevrolet Caprice, the Ford LTD Crown Victoria and the Dodge St. Regis which met the CAFE fuel economy mandates passed in 1978. Detroit's response to the growing popularity of imported compacts like the Toyota Corolla and the Volkswagen Rabbit were the Chevrolet Citation, and the Ford Fairmont; Ford replaced the Ford Pinto with the Ford Escort and Chrysler, on the verge of bankruptcy, introduced the Dodge Aries K. GM was having unfavorable market reactions to the Citation, and introduced the Chevrolet Corsica and Chevrolet Beretta in 1987 which did sell better. GM also replaced the Chevrolet Monza, introducing the 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier which was better received. Ford experienced a similar market rejection of the Fairmont, and introduced the front wheel drive Ford Tempo in 1984. 1979 energy crisis




it was NAFTA AND GATT that did in the detriot.




To a considerable extent, NAFTA, like its predecessors, deepened integration of the North American automotive market. The same “Big Three” automotive producers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) operated in all three NAFTA countries well before negotiations commenced for the 1965 Auto Pact, the 1989 CUSFTA, and the 1994 NAFTA. When the NAFTA negotiations began, all three trade ministers understood (with re- lief) that the elimination of trade barriers and investment incentives would not prompt huge segments of the automotive industry to shut down in one North American location and move to another. Instead, they expected that plants would continue to accelerate the ongoing process of specialization and that intraindustry trade would flourish—exactly as happened in the wake of the 1965 Auto Pact. Our analysis shows that these expectations have been borne out.


the above came from this PDF, www.dpc.senate.gov...

and just why do you think that happened, the unions, wanted to much money for it's member's and their coffers.and when nafta and gatt came along they could up and move production, to where labor was cheap. also many of the companies that supplied raw materials such as textiles, rubber, steel, and aluminum, did the same.

so the unions can blame clinton and nafta gatt.

maybe that help with some facts.
edit on 24-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

hounddoghowlie


it was NAFTA AND GATT that did in the detriot.





Yes you are right, and a big paid propaganda against American made cars in favor of foreign ones, they sold to the public that foreign was better than domestic making a big damage to the American base manufacturing.

Now even America made is not really made but just assemble, parts are mostly foreign this days and is not a big difference on brand names as the part comes from the same manufactures overseas.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


another thing that hurt detriot was most favored nation for china. that also hurt the trucking industry parts market.
cheap parts coming in, and being rebuilt.




Chinese auto-parts exports increased more than 900 percent from 2000 to 2010, largely because the Chinese central and local governments heavily subsidize the country’s auto-parts industry; they provided $27.5 billion in subsidies between 2001 and 2010 (Haley 2012). Many of these subsidies are prohibited by the World trade Organization (Stewart, et al.2012). Furthermore, makers of auto parts in China benefit from China’s illegal currency manipulation, which reduces the cost of Chinese auto parts by an additional 25 to 30 percent (Scott 2011b, 2–3). Other Asian countries, such as Japan and South Korea, also manipulate their currencies and have used other unfair trade policies to illegally promote sales of auto parts. In addition, Japan is one of the most closed markets in the world to auto parts from the United States due to the influence of its Kieretsu groups of auto suppliers, interlocking networks of suppliers affiliated with each of the major Japanese auto assemblers.


Jobs in the U.S. auto parts industry are at risk due to subsidized and unfairly traded Chinese auto parts

renewed trade in 1994 thank you again cliton,

Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge
China became a most favored nation in 2000 when clinton signed into law.




MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions. Following the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, however, the annual renewal of China’s MFN status became a source of considerable debate in the Congress; and legislation was introduced to terminate China’s MFN/NTR status or to impose additional conditions relating to improvements in China’s actions on various trade and non-trade issues. Agricultural interests generally opposed attempts to block MFN /NTR renewal for China, contending that several billion dollars annually in current and future U.S. agricultural exports could be jeopardized if that country retaliated. In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000 Most Favored Nation



edit on 24-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I'm glad a small portion of my union dues are given to candidates that support the American working man and woman.

I'm also glad that thanks to my unions [SAG/AFTRA and IATSE] that I can enjoy a lifestyle and income where I personally can contribute
to the campaigns of candidates that I think have the best interest of the American working man in mind.

Obama isn't a friend of unions or the American working man! He is a neocon stooge and uses our taxes to bail out companies, banks and financial institutions that should have been allowed to fail. Corporate welfare! I would think the conservatives would be singing his praises.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
edit on 24-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

neo96
LOL.

Unions didn't kill Detroit!!!!!

Oh hell yes they did.

With their bought, and paid for conservative opposite politicians.

Come on people the only 'people' allowed to buy politician's are unions !

And guess what we have to 'thank' for that ?

Citizens united!!!!!!!!



itizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions


en.wikipedia.org...

Yes indeed!

Lets get rid of Citizens united!.
edit on 24-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


You more than likely aren't old enough to remember this but Detroit died in the 80's when that failure Reagan was in office. And next time read your link a little more.



The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Do you even know who set up NAFTA? None other than Reagan himself and the first Bush signed it.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by neo96
 


I got the feeling that is going to be a lot of Wall street money going into Republicans campaign funds for next elections, as Republicans seems to be very fond of corporate America and were the ones that dared to take money from tax payers to pay for their mistakes.



It has been this way since the 80's where have you been?



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

olaru12
I'm glad a small portion of my union dues are given to candidates that support the American working man and woman.

I'm also glad that thanks to my unions [SAG/AFTRA and IATSE] that I can enjoy a lifestyle and income where I personally can contribute
to the campaigns of candidates that I think have the best interest of the American working man in mind.

Obama isn't a friend of unions or the American working man! He is a neocon stooge and uses our taxes to bail out companies, banks and financial institutions that should have been allowed to fail. Corporate welfare! I would think the conservatives would be singing his praises.


Shhh please don't point out how corporate welfare has increased under Obama and how Wall street is doing better than ever. This is a thread to complain about unions so please forget that if it wasn't for unions there would be no middle class there would just be the wealthy and the poor. And that is how the GOP and their supporters want it. Always remember unions are bad.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





You more than likely aren't old enough to remember this but Detroit died in the 80's when that failure Reagan was in office


Oh old enough to have watch the Robocop movie series that made Detroit 'infamous'.

Nice try blaming Reagan!

Sure it had nothing to do with Carter and Clinton only people with R's by their names.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   

buster2010
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Do you even know who set up NAFTA? None other than Reagan himself and the first Bush signed it.


your only partially right reagan proposed the the trade between mexico.




Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan's vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world. Since the mid-1980s, Heritage analysts have been stressing that a free trade agreement with Mexico not only will stimulate economic growth in the U.S., but will make Mexico a more stable and prosperous country. Heritage has published over three dozen studies stressing the benefits of free trade in North America.


yes it was a proposal by reagan,but it was cliton that that made the deal happen. another example of clinton riding on reagans coat tails.




By supporting the NAFTA, the Clinton Administration and a majority of Congress wisely rejected calls for a return to the same protectionist policies, demonstrated by the Smoot-Hawley tariff laws, which helped create the Great Depression. Many of these protectionist calls were from labor unions concerned that the NAFTA would cost U.S. jobs in older industries. Despite such concerns, though, labor will see that, as consumers in a growing economy, they too are better off when nations are free to trade with one another and workers are exposed to the rigors of international competition. Looking to the Future. President Clinton should ride the free trade momentum that conservatives have given him and reaffirm his support for free trade agreements with other Latin American countries, namely Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela. He has wisely voiced his support for George Bush's vision of an Enterprise for the Americas, which seeks to create a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Antarctica. Latin America is the fastest growing market for the U.S. and the only region where America enjoys a trade surplus. Every Latin American leader, from Carlos Menem in Argentina to Patricio Aylwin in Chile, has voiced support for free trade with the U.S. The Clinton Administration should begin negotiating free trade agreements with them.


above from here. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized

and just so that is clear.




The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact. NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton's first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years--though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative. During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was passed, Americans would hear a "giant sucking sound" of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on January 1, 1994, created the world's largest free-trade zone. NAFTA Signerd Into Law.


turned out ol ross was right.




edit on 24-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

It's only fair the working man gets his share. Bob Lutz, who "drove" GM to insolvency was making 2.8 million dollars in Pay and perks before Obama fired his ass out of there! That was only one executive of hundreds in that bureaucracy.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   

brice
It's only fair the working man gets his share. Bob Lutz, who "drove" GM to insolvency was making 2.8 million dollars in Pay and perks before Obama fired his ass out of there! That was only one executive of hundreds in that bureaucracy.


GM was on its way to insolvency since the 80s and Lutz and the employees at the time were the ones left holding the bag. Poor decisions by management and the union from the when the company was profitable had ongoing implications that should have been resolved through bankruptcy, not bailout.





 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join