backtop

Print 193 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on May 2 at 4:50 PM

  (Source: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat S.p.A.
Fiat puts the unions willingness to deal in the face of disaster to the test

Fiat is playing a hardball game of “Deal or No Deal” with the United Auto Workers union, which has been resisting proposed cuts in benefits and pay that would come as part of a government-suggested merger with Chrysler. 

The roots of the current talks began months ago, when Chrysler granted a 35 percent equity stake to Fiat SpA in exchange for help preparing its bailout plan.  Then President Obama rejected the plan and called for Fiat and Chrysler to fully merge.  Obama's auto task force offered the pair $6B USD in a one-time bailout fund to facilitate the merger and Chrysler's recovery, should they reach a deal.  The alternative is bankruptcy, which many believe would involve complete liquidation of Chrysler's assets.

The weeks have gone by with little progress made to complete the merger, thanks in part to union resistance.  Fiat is unwilling to assume the kind of baggage that comes with the deep health care and pension debts that the union brings with it.  Now, with only 2 weeks left to cut a deal, it has issued an ultimatum -- make the cuts or we walk.

Sergio Marchionne told Wednesday's Globe and Mail that he believes there's only a 50 percent chance the deal will be reached.  He states, "Absolutely we are prepared to walk. There is no doubt in my mind."

The point of division is proposed cuts, which would lower wages and benefits at UAW Chrysler plants in the U.S. and Canada to those at comparable German and Japanese automaker plants (non-union) in North America.  The U.S. UAW branch has shown some willingness to reach a deal, but the Canadian unions are showing particular resistance.  Chrysler may abandon its Canadian plants anyway, though, if it doesn't receive bailout funding from the Canadian government, according to its previous comments.

Nomura analyst Michael Tyndall believes Mr. Marchionne has little to lose from forfeited negotiations and is likely not bluffing.  He also believes that the unions are wholly opposed to the deal.  He states, "He's playing hardball.  (The unions) want them (Fiat) to walk away ... (they) don't see any benefits in this deal."

Even if Chrysler can cut a deal with the unions, there's the prickly situation of its debt.  It owes $7B USD to creditors, mostly banks.  Chrysler wants them to forgive most or all of this debt -- or to possibly exchange it for some equity.  The creditors have laughed off this suggestion thus far.  The current sentiment seems that they would be more willing to drive Chrysler into the ground and extract whatever they can from liquidation.

While the deal faces enormous obstacles, auto enthusiasts would love to see it happen, both in that it would keep Chrysler alive and that it would bring new European cars to America.  If Fiat can reach a deal it will bring its Cinquecento (500) car, wildly popular in Europe, to the States next year.  Furthermore, it would begin producing Alfa Romeo, a popular luxury brand, in the North America.

Chrysler did have a bit of good news to report.  Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that the state was awarding new funds to A123 battery company, which recently opened a plant in Livonia, Mich.  The state is heavily investing in the effort, offering $125.5M USD to help finance the new plant, which created 844 jobs.  The plant should prove a big boost to Chrysler's electric car efforts, should Chrysler survive its current crisis.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Little incentive
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 9:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
What incentive does the UAW have to make concessions when they know the US government has their back? All the union executives care about is themselves and they know they're taken care of. And the health care pension will have already been covered by the US tax payer.




RE: Little incentive
By Whedonic on 4/15/2009 9:52:26 AM , Rating: 3
True, but damn are they short sighted. Doesn't really do the *union member* much good if all of their jobs die with Chrysler.


RE: Little incentive
By mcturkey on 4/15/2009 9:53:15 AM , Rating: 1
Uh, the US does NOT have the back of the UAW as far as Chrysler is concerned. Merge with Fiat or Chapter 7.


RE: Little incentive
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 10:02:57 AM , Rating: 1
Yes but Chrysler does not control the union. Fiat isn't saying Chrysler needs to do anything for the merger. They're telling the union to either accept reduced pay and benefits or they're going to take a hike. The union's decision unfortunately will determine whether Chrysler lives or dies. But Chrysler has no control over that decision.


RE: Little incentive
By Aloonatic on 4/15/2009 10:11:08 AM , Rating: 5
Out of interest, how did American auto makers find themselves in such a mess? Did they learn nothing from the collapse of the car manufacturing industry in the UK for which unions were seen as a major contributor to its downfall?


RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 5
No. Unions are too politically powerful, and vastly too irrational, to actually apply rational thought to their proceedings.

There was a time when unions were valuable to protect laborers from abusive employers. That time has long since passed, and we now need to protect society from abusive unions. Outlaw them.


RE: Little incentive
By Aloonatic on 4/15/2009 10:42:50 AM , Rating: 4
Does anyone else think that part of the problem with the unions may be that employment rights are so weak in many parts of the USA that many workers are over reliant on these sorts of unions, which gives them more power than in necessary?

As it is over here in the UK (mostly because of EU intervention) all workers, unionised or not, have pretty decent working conditions as their right, no matter what job they have such as; 28 days leave a year (inc bank holidays), redundancy pay, statutory sick pay, stronger rules governing dismissal and redundancy and so on.

There are problems that come with all these rights of course. One thing that surprised me when I talked to my friend who moved out to the USA a wile back was that people can be fired for no reason (in his state, is it different from state to state?) and how little annual leave people get. Being able to dismiss people more easily has meant that it's much easier for companies in the USA to react of course and not having to pay people for not working so much also makes things easier when operating in a difficult financial environment, like that we are in at the moment is an advantage, which firms in the EU do not have


RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 10:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does anyone else think that part of the problem with the unions may be that employment rights are so weak in many parts of the USA that many workers are over reliant on these sorts of unions, which gives them more power than in necessary?


No.

The vast majority of labor in the USA is non-union. There are no problems.


RE: Little incentive
By Radnor on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 11:32:17 AM , Rating: 5
God luck with that. You go right on ahead and find some figures about how much labor in the US is union vs. non-union, and then we'll look at those numbers together and see where your sweat shops are. In case you're wondering, they're not in the US.

And you have a valid point about many employment laws being in place as a result of union work in the past. I have already noted that there was once a time when unions were needed.

That time has long since passed, however, and we now are in the position of needing to protect ourselves from unions.


RE: Little incentive
By Starcub on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Little incentive
By menace on 4/15/2009 2:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
management does what it can to maximize it's profit at employee expense


Hmm, add up the profits and losses of the big three over the last 20 years and tell me how successful they were at browbeating the unions to make outrageous profit at their expense.

You do realize the purpose of a business is to make profit for the owners, they are not paying people to make product out of any good will or charity. They are paying people for their skills and productivity.

And you do realize that a business has to compete to survive? One way they have been successful in trying to compete (until recently that is) is though automation and outsourcing. One by product of the unions accepting automation was this ridiculous "jobs bank" program where they pay people to sit around and do crossword puzzles.

Unions need to take their heads out of the sand and realize that the well being of their company should be priority #1.


RE: Little incentive
By gamerk2 on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Little incentive
By knutjb on 4/15/2009 11:02:16 PM , Rating: 4
Yes Henry Ford paid better than other makers part of which was to keep unions out as well as buying product. He viewed them as counter productive to how he wanted to run his business and FYI he controlled production from making steel and glass to assembling cars. Had he been encumbered with unions the modern heavy industry production line might not have been created. I belong to a union and it has some good points but it's also part of the problem. They make it extraordinarily difficult to change processes or fire a truly bad employee. Both sides have to give and take, right now for Chrysler it's the unions. Note Ford has sorted out it's union pay issues and the other two are still haggling since they have taken government money. Maybe the unions were holding out for a Wall Street level bail out because they were a big part to the Dems getting elected and expected pay back... Either way management giving in and unions pressuring for too much are both at fault. Yes unions can put a company out of business, just look at the UK auto and motorcycle industry in the 60s-70s.


RE: Little incentive
By Sandok on 4/16/2009 10:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
You want to blame Henry Ford, the man who made America what it is today?

He paid great salaries for one very simple reason: low turnover. As a result, he didn't need to keep on intructing new workers on how to produce his vehicales and thus, made more profit while his workers did too. A good by product of paying high salaries is that workers are happy, and as such, produce far better quality components with no added incentive.

But hey, you're right, Henry Ford is evil....


RE: Little incentive
By Hieyeck on 4/22/2009 2:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Precisely. I've pointed it out in other threads, but a quick reminder - 9/10 top rated cars are foreign, 9/10 worst rated are American. Simply put, the manufacturers are paying over 19/hour for CRAP - jobs which could be done better, cheaper, and faster by robots.

People outside America realize that the only remedy is hard work at less pay. Japanese CEOs take this to heart and lead by example - most are some of the lowest paid employees in their own companies right now. In fact, some are even giving back from their own savings, and eating lunch in the company cafeteria with the rest of them. They know they have the savings to last the economy, and work to protect their workers. Their workers see that someone who is much smarter and better trained, yet still makes sacrifices for the good of the company can feel safer in their jobs, because everyone is pitching in to keep their coworkers and friends employed, that people will only get fired or laid off if the company is in real trouble - and when that happens, the only thing they can do is make sure they're not the worst workers.

The biggest problem is mentality. Americans still believe in the individual, instead of the community. They're too focused on improving their own situation and are willing to let others lose instead aiming for win-win. You might not win as much, but you can be safer in the knowledge that your community is not out to screw you over - in fact, they'll do what they can to make sure the community as a whole improves, so that even if bad luck or bad times strike, there is safety in numbers. None of us is as strong as all of us.


RE: Little incentive
By Starcub on 5/2/2009 4:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unions need to take their heads out of the sand and realize that the well being of their company should be priority #1.

I'm sure that will happen about the same time management starts setting a good example. I'm no fan of unions, but they seem to me to be a necessary evil in the system as it exists now.


RE: Little incentive
By Radnor on 4/15/2009 6:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
I an utterlly amazed how europe still going on, and european companies survive.

It is almost all unionized or with derivates of unions.


RE: Little incentive
By alphadog on 4/20/2009 3:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it should clue you in that success, or the lack thereof for two of the Big Three, isn't solely "the unions" fault?


RE: Little incentive
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 10:57:46 AM , Rating: 5
How are employment rights weak? Federal law prohibits firing employees for a host of reasons(such as race, religion, gender, etc). But, depending on the state, they can fire you for any reason other than those.

Besides, a business has the right to employ whomever they choose. And they should have that right. If a business doesn't want to hire smokers, they should be allowed to have that rule. It's made up front and without exception. If a business only wants to hire people who are of a certain religion, they should have that right as well.

Employment is not a right. Someone is offering you a job. They should be allowed to impose any rules on that employment they wish. It's their company. Now for company's that deal with the federal government, they have to follow the government's rules.

But I will say that I get sick of the hypocrisy. Equal opportunity laws have done nothing but create unequal opportunity. Federal rules call for diversity in the workplace of federal agencies and government contractors. But then they have the balls to say that they don't hire based on race, religion, color, etc. By mandating diversity that's exactly what you're doing.


RE: Little incentive
By Ratinator on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Little incentive
By jtesoro on 4/15/2009 11:49:29 AM , Rating: 3
While I'm not 100% convinced one way or another yet, my thoughts on this *at this time* is that the businesses stating the rules on employment are OK as long as they're upfront about it and don't violate government laws. If they feel they don't like smokers for instance, that's fine as long as they let you know beforehand. If you don't like that rule, well, that's cool. Don't join the company. Remember you have a choice too. And note it works the other way as well. If they like smokers only, should be fine too. I personally wouldn't join a company if I know I'll be working in a smoke filled environment.

If you've an example where you think this kind of thing is unfair, I'd like to hear it. :)


RE: Little incentive
By Ratinator on 4/15/2009 12:16:18 PM , Rating: 1
That is thing...being up front. Labour laws help protect employees from unfair employers. Take pregnancy for instance. I do understand an employer does not want to be dealing with pregnant women which they will at some point have to grant maternity leave to. It is a hassle and a cost. For this reason some places will not hire a woman or rehire them after their maternity leave is up. Labour laws protect them in this case. One employer we know has a business where women make up most of his employees. What did he do? He bought the office next to him and turned it into a day care which ended up being cheaper for him then having to pay maternity leave and replacement staff and training.

Human beings need to have time off. Working 52 weeks a year will only lead to exhaustion and potential sickness. by law we have 3 weeks of mandatory paid holiday in my province. Though sick time is not mandatory many employers offer it. Why...because one person coming in sick has the potential for making everyone else sick which means lost time or cost for replacements.

The list goes on. Unions helped foster many of the current labour laws we see today. Unfortunately unions like the UAW have went too far where they are power hungry and unfortunately dictate the hand of the employer. Not all unions are bad.....believe me; I have worked for 3 different unions as well as not working for them (I currently hate mine - whether that matters or not). They have their place and their use. They just have to learn it is a game of comprimise and everything works out for the better. The UAW unfortunately knows nothing of compromise and all about take.


RE: Little incentive
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2009 4:14:08 PM , Rating: 3
That is one of the primary reasons why businesses usually don't hire female workers, in fear that they need to take time off to take care of kids.


RE: Little incentive
By Aloonatic on 4/16/2009 6:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
How are things going for women in the USA during this recession? Over here in the UK they have been the hardest hit and the first in line to be made redundant it seems.

There are many over here who do not employ women of child bearing age specifically because of the ever increasing number of laws about maternity leave, flexible working hours that they can demand, time when they just have to go to sort out an emergency and the increased likelihood of just jacking it all in at any given moment.

It's all legal as long as the job isn't advertised, not sure if a similar situation exists on the other side of the Atlantic.


RE: Little incentive
By Pneumothorax on 4/22/2009 4:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
However, even in Professional circles, women have been using these "Medical Leave" and other benefits that men don't get for their advantage. While I was in Residency, several of the female interns (The 1st year of residency, has the highest amount of being "on-call") supposedly(Conveniently) got pregnant on "accident" and guess what? They didn't have to take call. And guess who gets to take the slack... Men


RE: Little incentive
By CU on 4/15/2009 11:42:59 AM , Rating: 1
I agree an employer should be able to hire whoever they want. Although if you start not hiring all but one race, religion, etc. you are severally limiting your choice of employee's and you will miss out on some good employee's, but that should be your choice not the governments.


RE: Little incentive
By tastyratz on 4/15/2009 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you here to a point. There are certain qualities that can definitely adhere to a corporate image. They might not want smokers working at nicoderm, and sorry fat people but you don't represent the trimspa sales force adequately.

Employers SHOULD be able to hire employees based on any arbitrary set of conditions, and employees are required to adhere to them. a job is definitely not a right, its a person or entity paying another person or entity for a service meeting THEIR needs. if they don't need fat smokers selling diet pills and nicotine patches so be it.

Downside is we need to watch out because this can be a dangerous thing though. An employer can in theory celebrate the "we don't like lefties with big noses" holiday by firing off choice employees. A fine line exists between discrimination and requirements. Safeguards need to exist so nobody tries to just beat the system.

quote:
By mandating diversity that's exactly what you're doing.

Best quote ever.

Also, I believe you are confusing equal opportunity with affirmative action. Equal opportunity levels the playing field for anyone more qualified to get a position first, affirmative action requires diversity.


RE: Little incentive
By eldakka on 4/15/2009 11:08:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Employers SHOULD be able to hire employees based on any arbitrary set of conditions, and employees are required to adhere to them.


The problem with this is where do you draw the line?

If I work for Schweppes, could they put a condition of employment of "You can't drink anything from a competitor"? So if I'm seen having a bourbon and coke I could get fired?

Or if I work for Ford, something like "You must not drive a competitor's vehicle"?

Or if I work for a tobacco company, "you must be seen in public smokeing cigarettes"?

Or how about conditions like "You cannot take an ocean cruise holiday", or "you can not go to Israel", or "you must always wear red", "you can not eat fish", "you cannot shop at walmart", "you are not allowed to surf the internet", "you are not allowed to visit the tower of london", "you must go to mass of religion xyz at least once a week", "you are not allowed to go to mass of religion xyz", etc, etc.

An employer should only be able to set conditions that are required to perform your job during your working hours, while you are "on the clock". Sure, if you work for scheweppes, if you are at an official, paid function, you can't buy a coke. But once the function is over and you go to the movies with your family, you can buy a coke.

If you are a sales representative of Ford, while travelling between dealerships on a day-to-day basis you must drive a Ford (provided by Ford)!, but when you've knocked off for the day you can drive your Honda home.


RE: Little incentive
By Madcat1 on 4/15/2009 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Companies in the USA can hire based on religion? Wouldnt this void the same laws that are in place for firing people?
(im not thinking about religion based workingplaces like churches etc ofc.)

You got one messed up post there mister, and thats the part i chose to ask about first.


RE: Little incentive
By Solandri on 4/15/2009 5:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the size of the company. If you have fewer than 15 employees, you can hire whomever you want for whatever reason you want. EEOC guidelines do not apply.


RE: Little incentive
By teldar on 4/15/2009 4:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
One thing

You can't hire based on religion. It's discrimination against everyone not of that religion.
Automatically prohibited

Equal opportunity rules, however, also called affirmative action, are one of the worst things ever.


RE: Little incentive
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 5
Forty-hour work week for hourly employees with mandatory 1.5x overtime pay, mandatory one-hour lunch break for every six hours worked and 15 minute paid breaks for every four hours worked. No discrimination based on old age (ANY adult age, here in MN), religion, race, gender, sexuality, or disability is allowed. Non-hourly (exempt/salaried) jobs are restricted based on the type of work you do. Unemployment pay for lay-offs and many (maybe most) other terminations is mandatory.

We have a plethora of other rights that I won't list.

We can fire people for pretty much no reason ("I don't like you" or "you suck at your job") in all 50s states AFAIK, but that's how it should be. It would be too much of a burden on employers and on more-qualified workers if companies had an even higher burden of proof for reasonable employee termination. I might be unemployed myself right now if my company had trouble terminating my incompetent predecessor.

No, we have enough rights as employees.

While labor unions do have their place, they actually can cause more problems than they solve. Scabbing during a union strike will pretty much blacklist you from any industry that is union-dominated. Education, telecommunication, healthcare, and automotive labor are all industries in which unionization is more or less mandatory (including union dues) and in many cases harmful to the employers and employees alike.

For example, my uncle and aunt have taught in the Minneapolis public school system for nearly three decades together. They have been unhappy with the union for years. The union has, year after year, failed to negotiate pay raises for all Minneapolis public school teachers that come close to accounting for inflation. In other words, teachers in a major metropolitan public school system are not gainfully employed, despite holding jobs that are crucial to society. The union has also failed to prevent lay-offs of even long-time veteran employees.

They don't rely on the union. It doesn't help them. The union has too much power over the workers (but not enough over the jobs) because that's what many (most?) unions do: they get too much power and take over a given job market or industry.

Why should UAW members have more protection and better pay than public school teachers? Why should the government/taxpayers subsidize them or the industry employ them when they are unable to work anywhere near market wages? I am not apathetic towards their plight, but frankly this is one of those cases in which neither the union nor additional employee rights would help.


RE: Little incentive
By Madcat1 on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Little incentive
By yomamafor1 on 4/15/2009 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the world, son.

One of the managers in the company I worked for is on the verge of being fired because his superior "doesn't like his management style". Does that belong to "I don't like you" category? You bet. Is it unreasonable? No.

Get used to it.


RE: Little incentive
By Madcat1 on 4/16/2009 2:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well actually no, that doesnt belong in the "i dont like you" category. Clearly the way you handle your given task is reflecting your skill/attitude and ideas.

If your in a company with set goals and some form of "moto", you would be required to proceed according to that moto.

However, if that same guy was skilled, yet didnt like the same brand of cars that his boss liked, and was kicked for that: thats the "i dont like you" category.

and ofcourse these things arent black and white, but in any workplace with the minimum set of ethics, understand that it would be wrong to kick someone unless you have a real reason to do so.

Then again, im in no way familiar with the american contracts, i base my views in, this topic, on european standards.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 2:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
This is kind of a pointless argument.

If someone was worth so little to the company that he would be fired based on the car he drove, he wouldn't have been hired in the first place.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 9:41:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why should UAW members have more protection and better pay than public school teachers?


I've always viewed teaching in public schools as a form of community service for the terminally unambitious.


RE: Little incentive
By Xenoterranos on 4/16/2009 12:33:41 AM , Rating: 1
I bet you loath technicians and waste management workers too, huh?


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 12:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I should have tagged my response with a sarcasm flag.

<<sarcsm- Don't get many jokes, huh? sarcsm>


RE: Little incentive
By Yawgm0th on 4/16/2009 3:08:09 AM , Rating: 4
In some cases that is accurate -- because teaching is not lucrative. It's not even very promising in the private sector.

Teachers should be made to compete for good wages. Instead we're forced to hope those who would be good teachers choose to teach instead of work in an applied field.


RE: Little incentive
By rcc on 4/16/2009 4:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
There is always the old adage....

Those that can't do, teach.
Those that can't teach, manage.

I'm not sure I agree 100%, but there are elements of truth.

: )

It's right up there with

Force to fit,
File to hide,
Paint to cover.


RE: Little incentive
By alphadog on 4/20/2009 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Being married to a elementary school teacher, who contributed to thousands of kids having a few more, rather than a few less, points in the "positive influences" column, I am greatly disturbed by this kind of thinking in many of the posts on teachers.

My wife just got another card from a high-school graduating kid going on to college, thanking her for being her second grade teacher and one of her most memorable ones.

How many employees have you had send you a thank you card fifteen years or more later???


RE: Little incentive
By rcc on 4/21/2009 1:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read my post, and it's tone?

However, the answer you your question is several, thank you very much.

Actually, from dealing with the kids schools, I found that the ratio was about 1 good teacher to 1 so so teacher to 1 ungood teacher. But that's just my experience, and it varied from school to school. Funny, my opinion of the "good" teachers was generally different than that of the kids, at that time. Now that they are out of school and can look back objectively, we agree more. : )


RE: Little incentive
By invidious on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Little incentive
By Spuke on 4/15/2009 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I talked to my friend who moved out to the USA a wile back was that people can be fired for no reason (in his state, is it different from state to state?)
Varies by state but this goes both ways. Employees in these states can leave without notice also.


RE: Little incentive
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 11:01:29 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think unions should be outlawed. There are many unions that do what they're supposed to do. Protect their workers. There are welders unions that prevent unskilled people from getting hired and keep illegals out of the workplace. Same goes for electricians and other professions.

But the UAW has gotten far too powerful and does nothing to protect its workers jobs. Only seek to get them ever more outlandish pay and benefits.

Unions were founded to protect workers from dangerous work environments and ensure they got a fair wage. The UAW wages and benefits are anything but fair. People with a high school diploma doing unskilled labor should not command salaries equal to or greater than those of the engineers who have a degree, have a skill, and design the product the workers build.


RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 11:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
All due respect, that's no reason to perpetuate the existence of unions. For example, ensuring that only properly trained and skilled welders do welding could be a regulation at the state or federal level. That's dangerous work for the worker, as well as for the consumers of welded product. Welding is a highly skilled job and I sure as hell wouldn't want to come into contact with anything welded by an untrained worker.

You have to have a license to practice law, or medicine, or whatever else. Hell, you have to have a license to cut someone's hair. I would have no problem in requiring successful completion of certain training requirements to acquire a welder's license, and then impose punishing fines on employers who hire welders without those credentials.

I simply have not the slightest bit of faith that, if the unions are left in place in any manner at all, that they won't continue to be abusive. History has proven that the union model simply does not work...it's why our companies have to ship work to other countries, why they have to shutter plants, and why towns built up around those plants fall virtually into poverty when that happens.

So let's continue to protect the workers, and ensure quality products, by designing and implementing proper education/training requirements and certification. And toss the union concept as a whole.


RE: Little incentive
By mvpx02 on 4/15/2009 11:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
hmmm

So rather than unions handling the certification/licensing of skilled laborers, you want to give that responsibility to the US Government? to tell you the truth, I'm not sure which scenario frightens me more lol...

Replacing unions sounds nice, but the government has a unique way of adding 7 useless layers of bureaucracy to everything...

we're screwed

Plus the government isn't particularly good at licensing: just taking a 5 minute drive is all that is necessary to see what a piss poor job Uncle Sam has done in determining who is qualified to safely operate a motor vehicle.


RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fine. Require that employer verify that welders (or whatever) provide proof of education/training from the school they went to. When you graduate from a welding program, you get a diploma. The diploma exists as proof of your having successfully completed that program. So there you go.

On the flipside though, licensing is something that is pretty easy to do, and I don't think there's a whole lot of beauracracy in most cases. And if there is, like I said, leave it to the education providers to do the certification...and then just have the government certify the programs themselves.

More than one way to skin that cat.


RE: Little incentive
By Solandri on 4/15/2009 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Professional licensing is generally carried out by a private organization. The AMA (doctors), ABA (lawyers), NSPE (engineers) are all private organizations which license their members and revoke those licenses if need be. If a union wants to set up a similar licensing organization for welders, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

The catch is that employers are free to decide whether they want to require those licenses or not. Pretty much all hospitals and courts require AMA and ABA licenses. But being a licensed professional engineer is not necessary in most engineering occupations outside of civil engineering. So a union wanting to license their welders and require the employer only hire welders who are licensed is cuckoo. Decisions about hiring requirements should remain with the employer or the government.


RE: Little incentive
By TommyCH on 4/15/2009 6:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
I registered just for this post. I'm from switzerland and thats how we do it over here since 50 years. University or job certificate. I would say 80% of the 20 year old study or do have a 2-4 year job education with a national certificate in their pocket. Standards are made by the industries and are verified by law.

I have a certificate as an electrician, this 4 year education (4 days work, 1 day school and a final test, theoretical and practical) got me a job as an aircraft electrician (EASA A License, internationally valid) without the crap basic modules and the 3 year prcatical expirience. Because my certificate (basicly only national valid) allready covers for this.


RE: Little incentive
By TommyCH on 4/15/2009 7:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the doublepost but I have to add some things. We get paid by our age and social status. So everybody who leaves the national school system with 16 gets basically forced into a job eductation, I even started with 15 because of my early school entry. So we get us hired and work, because of our low age for nearly nothing.

Construction work 4 days a week and 1 day school for 600 franks a month. Second year was 750, then 900 and 1200 a month for the last year. In some way, we work for education, sometimes it goes wrong and those young people cost more then they bring in, but in the end it works somehow.

So everybody sits on their parents wallets till they have a certificate (18-20 year old) wich basicaly garantees a 4000/month salary. The society (family) take up the living cost while the young are itroduced into the "real" world.


RE: Little incentive
By TommyCH on 4/15/2009 7:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Attention, tripplepost incoming. Nobody is really forced to employee certified staff or educate teenagers. Everybody with practical expirince and industry certificates gets hired. But the national certificates cover many theoretical/practical basics wich are important for young people and the companys.


RE: Little incentive
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
...and actually, for that matter, I think you could easily adopt Continuing Professional Education programs as are evident in other fields. That whole thing has been thought through and set up...requiring that you have certain qualifications to get into your job, and requiring that you get CPE credits on an ongoing basis...by attending seminars or workshops or whatever.

Continuing with the example of the welder, you first have to get a diploma/certificate from an accredited school. This makes you legally able to work as a welder. Then, every 5 years or so, you have to have accumulated so may CPE credits...either by going to workshops on new welding techniques/products/technology, or maybe by demonstrations of proficiency, or whatever else is pertinent to being a good welder (I don't know, since I'm impressed any time I manage to braze a nut to a piece of sheet metal for my own use).


RE: Little incentive
By mvpx02 on 4/15/2009 1:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, I agree with you, the I just can't help but cringe (it's a reflex) every time somebody suggests a system they think would be better run by the government.


RE: Little incentive
By ClownPuncher on 4/15/2009 11:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly right, some unions are run by reasonable people, some of them got greedy. It's about time we trim some of the fat and create business that is profitable.


RE: Little incentive
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 1:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the best things I've heard in a while, absolutely true. Democracy has been great for the U.S., but it hasn't taken hold/worked out plenty of other places. Democracy is inheritantly a moderately social liberal form of government (compared to religious-based gov'ts or dictatorships) so it requires a certain base prosperity -- which certain nations like Iraq lack. Likewise, socialism is even more liberal and requires in turn even MORE base prosperity -- only a region like Norway in which the stand of living is already so high can see it through to success. The U.S. just doesn't have a high enough standard of living, per capita, to adopt socialism on a broad scale. It certainly nice to strive towards that, just like nations like Iraq strive towards Democracy, but its pointless to get ahead of ourselves.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen you make a post this agreeable. You hit the nail on the head here. Kudos.


RE: Little incentive
By Doormat on 4/15/2009 10:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
You still haven't explained how the US Govt has the UAW's back. You just kinda shot that claim out there and left it hanging, with nothing substantial to back it up.


RE: Little incentive
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Little incentive
By MozeeToby on 4/15/2009 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it at least possible that the purpose was to save individual jobs and that trying to pull GM and Chrysler out of the fire was a good way to save a couple hundred thousand of them.

No other industry that employs so many people was in as much trouble as the auto industry. Maybe the unions were one of the reasons the industry was in trouble, but that doesn't necessarily mean the bailout was designed to specifically help the unions.

In fact, for the last two months the administration has been pushing bankruptcy for GM. You can hardly call that helpful to the unions.


RE: Little incentive
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 11:07:27 AM , Rating: 1
The UAW supports Democrats. Democrats support them(at least on the campaign trail). Who's in charge right now?

The auto bailouts were nothing but a pay off to the union since if GM and Chrysler had gone bankrupt without the government having any control, the UAW would have lost their obscene health care benefits.

In the case of GM, now when they go bankrupt the government will assume the liability for those bad parts of the company and the good parts will come out of bankruptcy with the unions still there.


RE: Little incentive
By Doormat on 4/15/2009 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
So the Democratic government is backing the UAW, and the government gave the auto industry bailout money, but the bailouts started under, and were pushed hard by, GW Bush.

Also, your ability to predict the future if GM does go into bankruptcy is astonishing, please, while you're predicting the future can you tell me the lottery numbers for Friday?


RE: Little incentive
By ClownPuncher on 4/15/2009 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 5
4 8 15 16 23 42


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/15/2009 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Doormat on April 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM
You still haven't explained how the US Govt has the UAW's back. You just kinda shot that claim out there and left it hanging, with nothing substantial to back it up.
Simple, it's called the Democratic Party. It's leader right now is the president of the USA, and he's the most left-leaning president the US has ever had. He's openly trying to help unions reclaim some of their old power. The UAW knows he will do all he can to help them out.

There's also the Wagner act from 1935 and Congress's 1975 fuel economy law which created the "two fleets" rule. You may want to read up on these things. Combined they force Detroit's big three to use expensive union labor at the cost of profitability.


RE: Little incentive
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Simple, it's called the Democratic Party. It's leader right now is the president of the USA, and he's the most left-leaning president the US has ever had. He's openly trying to help unions reclaim some of their old power. The UAW knows he will do all he can to help them out.
This is an unfair assessment. Carter and FDR are and were further left in policy, rhetoric, and probably ideology than Obama. And Obama has not been as tough on the UAW as I'd like, but that is one of the flaws of the Democratic party. Too many constituents would revolt if they took the ideological blow and did the right thing in regards to labor unions -- but both parties do this on a number of issues. Few Republicans truly care about both extreme free-market economic policy and conservative social policy, but they all pretend to be on both sides because their constituency demands it. It's politics.

Anyway, I have no disagreement that government policy has not done enough to fix the current situation with the UAW.


RE: Little incentive
By omnicronx on 4/15/2009 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Now remind me, which party said they would have to step in if the original bill was not passed?

"Bush officials made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program"

Both Obama and Bush are did/do not want the American auto industry to die. Not because of the UAW, but because of the economic backlash that will surely be blamed on them if no action was taken.

If Obama really had the UAW's back, then why have GM workers already taken a paycut, and why has the Obama administration said they are willing to let GM/Chrystler go into bankruptcy.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/15/2009 3:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 1:11:23 PM ,
This is an unfair assessment. Carter and FDR are and were further left in policy, rhetoric, and probably ideology than Obama. And Obama has not been as tough on the UAW as I'd like, but that is one of the flaws of the Democratic party. Too many constituents would revolt if they took the ideological blow and did the right thing in regards to labor unions -- but both parties do this on a number of issues. Few Republicans truly care about both extreme free-market economic policy and conservative social policy, but they all pretend to be on both sides because their constituency demands it. It's politics.

Anyway, I have no disagreement that government policy has not done enough to fix the current situation with the UAW.
I have to ask, what history books did you read growing up? Do you think FDR or Carter would have acrtively worked to harm charitable organizations in this country in order to replace them with the federal government? That's one thing Obama is doing. He's drastically raising taxes on charitable contributions in order to raise more taxes for the federal government. This means charities will get less money, which means over time the federal government will replace them. Obama thinks doctors should be allowed to put aside a baby that survives an abortion and let it die. I sincerely doubt Carter of FDR would have agreed (heck, FDR was himself disabled, or is it other-abled?). Obama has little to no respect for the military, Carter served and FDR was one of our best Commanders in Chief. I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.

quote:
By omnicronx on 4/15/2009 1:26:08 PM

Now remind me, which party said they would have to step in if the original bill was not passed?

"Bush officials made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program"

Both Obama and Bush are did/do not want the American auto industry to die. Not because of the UAW, but because of the economic backlash that will surely be blamed on them if no action was taken.

If Obama really had the UAW's back, then why have GM workers already taken a paycut, and why has the Obama administration said they are willing to let GM/Chrystler go into bankruptcy.
Saving Detroit (GM, Ford, Chrysler) does NOT mean saving the UAW. We're talking UAW here, not Detroit. I don't believe Bush would have done for the UAW what Obama is surely willing to do. The UAW hates the Republican part, never liked either Bush. Obama fired the head of GM, but did nothing at all to the union.


RE: Little incentive
By HinderedHindsight on 4/15/2009 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obama fired the head of GM, but did nothing at all to the union.


Obama didn't, and couldn't fire Rick Wagoner. Wagoner agreed to step down as a part of a deal that would keep money flowing into GM. Part of the departure of Wagoner was a political decision to show the public (who holds these bailouts as unpopular) that change is occurring at GM.

Consider that GM has lost market share consistently over the last several years. Rick Wagoner is directly responsible for GM's success or failure, not the UAW.

Am I saying it is completely his fault that that GM failing? Not necessarily. But the fact of the matter is, GM's success is his job at GM, not the UAW's.

The bigger problem is the fact that companies have revolving doors of executives, and regardless of the companies success or failure, executives still get rewarded. We're seeing this all over the place with executives getting huge payouts after being thrown out of failing companies.

Obama couldn't give GM more money without some visible change, and the auto were unpopular to begin with. He needed to justify continued funds; Wagoner was in a sense the sacrificial lamb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/30auto....


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 7:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
I'm assuming you're trying to make a case for President Obama being the most liberal president in history. I disagree with that assessment but let's discuss your proof points

It's pure supposition on your part that the President's intent to limit (not eliminate) charitable/political tax deductions is a bid to expand federal power. I plan to give the same to the charities I support, regardless of the impact it will make on my federal taxes. It's true that I cannot give millions like Bill Gates, but I do what I can. If you could give an example where this has been proposed it might help your argument.

What is the basis of your conjecture that President Obama wants doctors to let babies die? I thought it was completely hypocritical that President Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cells research because letting human eggs be destroyed would be unethical. Yet every day in this country hundreds (maybe thousands) of human eggs are harvested and destroyed in fertility clinics. President Bush didn't sign an executive order or propose a bill that would outlaw the practice. Based on your liberal litmus test, does that fact make former President Bush a liberal?

As far as President Obama having little or no respect for the military, what is that conjecture based on? I haven't hear or seen anything that would lead me to that conclusion. In the last 80 years of Democratic and Republican US administrations, the only individual I felt had no respect for the military was former Vice President Dick Cheney. He applied for and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam war while politically supporting US involvement in SE Asia. That my friend is the definition of a coward.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 12:36:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
by nbourbaki on April 15, 2009 at 7:32 PM

I'm assuming you're trying to make a case for President Obama being the most liberal president in history. I disagree with that assessment but let's discuss your proof points

It's pure supposition on your part that the President's intent to limit (not eliminate) charitable/political tax deductions is a bid to expand federal power. I plan to give the same to the charities I support, regardless of the impact it will make on my federal taxes. It's true that I cannot give millions like Bill Gates, but I do what I can. If you could give an example where this has been proposed it might help your argument.


I didn't say eliminate, I said "He's drastically raising taxes on charitable contributions". Here's what was in the Washington Post:
quote:
By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 26, 2009; Page A02

President Obama defends his proposal to cut the tax deductions that wealthy Americans can claim for their charitable donations by arguing that the shift would not have an adverse effect on giving, but two independent analyses concluded that the proposal could result in a drop of as much as $3.87 billion for the already reeling nonprofit sector.
You can try and say the Washington Post is a conservative publication, but you'll get laughed at if you do. $3.87 billion less for charities is a lot of money. Even Bill Gates would say it;s more than pocket change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

That combined with the fact that he's going to get rid of the consience clause for religious folks and tell religious organizations that they can't hire only folks that adhere to their views (something even Bill Clinton didn't do) says he's going out of his way to harm charities. He wants Big Brother to care for you, not your neighbor.

quote:
What is the basis of your conjecture that President Obama wants doctors to let babies die? I thought it was completely hypocritical that President Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cells research because letting human eggs be destroyed would be unethical. Yet every day in this country hundreds (maybe thousands) of human eggs are harvested and destroyed in fertility clinics. President Bush didn't sign an executive order or propose a bill that would outlaw the practice. Based on your liberal litmus test, does that fact make former President Bush a liberal?


First, don't care about Bush or the Republicans, this is about Obama. Second, a quote from a CBS News story:
quote:
He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics...
There's much more out there, the fact is he voted AGAINST caring for babies that survive abortions, and there are babies that survive them, some live to speak about it. http://www.bornalivetruth.org/index.php

quote:
As far as President Obama having little or no respect for the military, what is that conjecture based on? I haven't hear or seen anything that would lead me to that conclusion. In the last 80 years of Democratic and Republican US administrations, the only individual I felt had no respect for the military was former Vice President Dick Cheney. He applied for and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam war while politically supporting US involvement in SE Asia. That my friend is the definition of a coward.
Again, it's Obama I'm talking about here. You seem to have a hard time focusing. Obama wants my Vietnam War veteran buddy to pay for his health care, he doesn't wants the federal government to have to care for guys hurt in the line of duty. Think that has my buddy a wee bit upset. Obama's handing out TRILLIONS of dollars, that's $1,000,000,000,000.00+, and yet the only thing he's cutting is military spending. Everything else goes up, and it seems everybody is on the dole, but not the folks in uniform. He and the Democrats screamed (especially MoveOn.org) about Bush's deficits, yet Obama is set to TRIPLE them. But hey, gotta cut the military, right?


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 1:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This means charities will get less money, which means over time the federal government will replace them.


The supposition I asked for clarification on, was how the change in tax deductions for charitable contributions turns into a federal expansion of power. I don't believe the federal government will replace PETA or Greenpeace in my lifetime.

quote:
That combined with the fact that he's going to get rid of the consience clause for religious folks and tell religious organizations that they can't hire only folks that adhere to their views (something even Bill Clinton didn't do) says he's going out of his way to harm charities. He wants Big Brother to care for you, not your neighbor.


What bill are you referring to? If that was a bill being considered, I would oppose it.

quote:
Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide./quote>

I'm assuming that the quote above is the relevant segment of that report for your contention that President Obama:

quote:
... thinks doctors should be allowed to put aside a baby that survives an abortion and let it die.


According to Fact Check:
quote:
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.


My understanding is that the language in the bills in question were written such that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

quote:
Obama wants my Vietnam War veteran buddy to pay for his health care, he doesn't wants the federal government to have to care for guys hurt in the line of duty.


While that idea was floated as one of the cost saving options under President Obama's 2010 budget, it was quickly withdrawn from consideration. President Obama's budget proposal increases military spending by 4%. Other than anecdotal inferences about your buddies (focus here) I'm not seeing a decrease in military spending.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 9:32:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 1:58:42 AM
quote:
This means charities will get less money, which means over time the federal government will replace them.

The supposition I asked for clarification on, was how the change in tax deductions for charitable contributions turns into a federal expansion of power. I don't believe the federal government will replace PETA or Greenpeace in my lifetime.


Well, if you take almost $4,000,000,000.00 out of the world of charity in the US, folks will have to find an alternative. I can't help but imagine that Mr. Obama will be happy to oblige, but under his conditions. Mind you, I'm not talking Peta, I'm talking soup kitchens and the like. They rely heavily on large donors.

quote:
quote:
That combined with the fact that he's going to get rid of the conscience clause for religious folks and tell religious organizations that they can't hire only folks that adhere to their views (something even Bill Clinton didn't do) says he's going out of his way to harm charities. He wants Big Brother to care for you, not your neighbor.

What bill are you referring to? If that was a bill being considered, I would oppose it.


This change is officially under consideration right now, the expectation is he will get rid of the conscience clause. However, he is under heavy pressure from the likes of the US Roman Catholic bishops. I'm glad you and I agree here!

quote:
quote:
Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

I'm assuming that the quote above is the relevant segment of that report for your contention that President Obama:

quote:
... thinks doctors should be allowed to put aside a baby that survives an abortion and let it die.

According to Fact Check:

quote:
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

My understanding is that the language in the bills in question were written such that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."


The definition of "born alive" in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL's paragraph (c), Amendment 1 (timeline link below), to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill. He did this so he would have political coverage and folks such as yourself wouldn't think ill of him.
http://www.jillstanek.com/obama%20committee%2041.h...

Consider also Obama's own words. He called a baby punishment. Any person who refers to a baby as punishment is a human being that has no conscience. How anybody can seriously call them that is literally incomprehensible to me. A human being is never, ever, a punishment. That dehumanizes babies. I had uncles who fought leaders who believed similar things. Thankfully my uncles' side won.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 11:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, if you take almost $4,000,000,000.00 out of the world of charity in the US, folks will have to find an alternative. I can't help but imagine that Mr. Obama will be happy to oblige, but under his conditions. Mind you, I'm not talking Peta, I'm talking soup kitchens and the like. They rely heavily on large donors.


I lean towards a flat tax and the elimination of all deductions. Charities survived before there was a federal tax deduction and will survive this. You want to give a few million dollars to your Alta Mater and have a building named after you? I really don't care, but under the proposed plan, it won't be a tax deduction. The largest charity in the US is the United Way. 95% of their donations come from working people like you and me. Under the proposed plan, I will still be able to deduct my contributions.

quote:
This change is officially under consideration right now, the expectation is he will get rid of the conscience clause. However, he is under heavy pressure from the likes of the US Roman Catholic bishops. I'm glad you and I agree here!


The conscience clause as codified by the Church Amendment does present some real issues. Under the clause, if a woman's life was at risk in an emergency situation, a physician could refuse to perform an abortion that would save the woman's life. I strongly disagree with that application of the law. I think the law should be amended to exclude anyone from invoking that clause when a life is at stake. Limiting you to private practice might remove you from making those kinds of life and death decisions. Putting restrictions on your medical license could also protect everyone while respecting your conscience. I would also strongly oppose repealing the Church Amendment.

quote:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.


It would seem that the legal language you highlighted supports President Obama's contention that it was the language he had the problem with. Which to me, is very different than your original contention that:

quote:
Obama thinks doctors should be allowed to put aside a baby that survives an abortion and let it die


If the goal of the Illinois bill was to provide medical care for an aborted fetus, they should have mirrored the language of the federal statute which was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law by former President Bush. Based on the language you outlined, that was not the intent of the bill.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 12:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by nbourbaki on April 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I lean towards a flat tax and the elimination of all deductions. Charities survived before there was a federal tax deduction and will survive this. You want to give a few million dollars to your Alta Mater and have a building named after you? I really don't care, but under the proposed plan, it won't be a tax deduction. The largest charity in the US is the United Way. 95% of their donations come from working people like you and me. Under the proposed plan, I will still be able to deduct my contributions.

What he wants to do is no longer allow deductions to be made at the higher end of the tax rates. If you are fortunate enough to be rich (as defined by Obama, probably not you or me), then you currently save close to 40% on your charitable contributions. Obama says no, not that rate, it's too high. You will be saving at the lowest rate, or possibly no savings at all. I personally don't give to any charities that are setup to be pre-payroll tax at work. So were I fortunate enough to be in the highest bracket, I would lose the current tax savings. Obviously charities were around before the US existed, but our history is they have ebbed and flowed as the US government has taken over the roles that charities once filled, and as the government mader it harder for the public to support them. And all too often the government has done it at a greater expense and with less results. If we are going to have a tax code, it should be based on doing what's right for the people, not the government. The tax code should create incentives for things like giving to charities.

quote:
If the goal of the Illinois bill was to provide medical care for an aborted fetus, they should have mirrored the language of the federal statute which was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law by former President Bush. Based on the language you outlined, that was not the intent of the bill.


Did you not read my post? The IL senator who sponsored the bill tried to amend it to have the same language as the US Senate bill, but Obama blocked that amendment and let the bill die. So I stand by my words. He couldn't even vote to save those babies. Even if the vote were seen as purely a showcase vote with no meaning, who in his right mind doesn't say, "Yes, save the baby!"? Again, he sees those babies as a punishment, an unjust punishment with which he will have nothing to do. He'd rather please Planned Parenthood than defend those little guys.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 1:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously, I agree with President Obama on limiting charitable contributions at the highest tax rate and you do not. I've heard from more than one person that they would rather give the money to any charity rather than pay the tax. You want to give a million dollars to PETA, I could care less but that shouldn't be a tax deduction.

quote:
Even if the vote were seen as purely a showcase vote with no meaning, who in his right mind doesn't say, "Yes, save the baby!"?


I did read your post, and I'm trying to understand your point of view. Here's an alternative view:

Factcheck.org

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

The proceeding is a far more balance view of President Obama's position.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 2:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously, I agree with President Obama on limiting charitable contributions at the highest tax rate and you do not. I've heard from more than one person that they would rather give the money to any charity rather than pay the tax. You want to give a million dollars to PETA, I could care less but that shouldn't be a tax deduction.


To what end?

If a man makes a million dollars and gives half of it away to charities of his choosing, be it the Red Cross, Toys for Tots, or PETA, what reasonable justification is there for taxing him on the portion of income he gave to charity?


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 2:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To what end?

If a man makes a million dollars and gives half of it away to charities of his choosing, be it the Red Cross, Toys for Tots, or PETA, what reasonable justification is there for taxing him on the portion of income he gave to charity?


When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."

The original income tax that was passed to fund the Civil War had no deductions and was taxed at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. The an update to the law was passed in 1862 and included important reforms to the Federal income tax that presaged important features of the current tax. For example, a two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent. A standard deduction of $600 was enacted and a variety of deductions were permitted for such things as rental housing, repairs, losses, and other taxes paid. In addition, to assure timely collection, taxes were "withheld at the source" by employers. The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872 and from 1868 to 1913, almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected from the remaining excises.

The present day tax code is a hodgepodge of special interest deductions and exemptions. I'd take a simplified, graduated and lower tax rate any day over the current loophole ridden statute.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't answer my question. I understand why the government has the power to tax.

However, the government also should understand that if I give my income away to charitable causes, it is no longer my income. Hence why we have deductions for charitable contributions...


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 4:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I'll try to be more direct.

No, if you throw the money you earn into a garbage disposal it's still income and subject to federal income tax.

It used to be that you could deduct all interest payments (including interest on car loans and credit cards) up to a cap. That deduction ended years ago. Using your logic, the money I paid on interest on my credit card is no longer my income. Wrong, I'm just not able to deduct that expense anymore.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Charitable gifts are a bit different than credit card interest, or simply dumping your money down a garbage disposal. If that is beyond your understanding, so be it.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 6:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the government also should understand that if I give my income away to charitable causes, it is no longer my income.


Do you even pay taxes? Have you ever claimed a deduction for a charitable contributions? If you had you would understand that a charitable contribution is a deduction from taxable income. You know the part you pay taxes on? It's still your income.

quote:

Charitable gifts are a bit different than credit card interest, or simply dumping your money down a garbage disposal. If that is beyond your understanding, so be it.


Why? At one time they were both treated pretty much the same under the tax code. If you're referring to the benefits to society of charitable giving, then I would suggest you pay your fair share of taxes first and then give whatever you want to give to the charity of your choice.

Sorry if I'm coming off as pedantic, but the, "no longer my income" statement was absurd.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 6:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you even pay taxes? Have you ever claimed a deduction for a charitable contributions? If you had you would understand that a charitable contribution is a deduction from taxable income. You know the part you pay taxes on? It's still your income.


I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people who contribute to charity shouldn't pay any taxes. The part about "it is no longer my income" refers to the charitable gift; it is gifted elsewhere; from a tax perspective it is deducted from your AGI. IMO that income that was gifted away should not be taxable at any rate regardless of household income. As I understand, the President is looking to change that. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

quote:
Why? At one time they were both treated pretty much the same under the tax code. If you're referring to the benefits to society of charitable giving, then I would suggest you pay your fair share of taxes first and then give whatever you want to give to the charity of your choice.


What is fair? If a man is generous enough to give half his income to charity, is he cheating the government? Of course not. If anything, he is reducing what government needs to do.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 7:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people who contribute to charity shouldn't pay any taxes. The part about "it is no longer my income" refers to the charitable gift; it is gifted elsewhere; from a tax perspective it is deducted from your AGI. IMO that income that was gifted away should not be taxable at any rate regardless of household income. As I understand, the President is looking to change that. Perhaps I'm mistaken?


Fair enough, the problem is that too many people in the highest tax bracket pay little or no taxes on their gross income because of deductions. Corporate taxes have fell in half since the 1950's (and I'm talking 2007, before the current crisis when profitability was significantly higher overall than in the '50's). Excise taxes have dropped to a fraction of what they were in 1960. The net result is that the middle class now pay a far higher percentage of taxes in relation to GDP. The country is fighting two wars and a financial crisis at home. If you curtail federal spending you'll choke off any near term hope of recovery. If you raise taxes on the middle class you'll choke off any hope of a near term recovery. So to put our financial house in order means limiting the deductions at the highest levels of income, I'm willing to give it a shot.

quote:
What is fair? If a man is generous enough to give half his income to charity, is he cheating the government? Of course not. If anything, he is reducing what government needs to do.


Fair to me it means paying your fair share of taxes. It's not fair to me, to pick up the slack from your giving. It's not fair that my children will inherit a huge national debt because you would rather give you money to PETA. Whatever happened to patriotic duty?


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 8:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fair enough, the problem is that too many people in the highest tax bracket pay little or no taxes on their gross income because of deductions.


Uhh, no. The top 1% still pay about 40% of this nation's federal income tax and reported 22% of the nation's AGI as of 2006.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Do some of those people abuse the system and take deductions they probably shouldn't? Of course. Is that a reason to crack down on charitable giving? Heck no. The people that abuse the tax system aren't doing so by giving generously to the Red Cross.

quote:
The country is fighting two wars and a financial crisis at home. If you curtail federal spending you'll choke off any near term hope of recovery. If you raise taxes on the middle class you'll choke off any hope of a near term recovery. So to put our financial house in order means limiting the deductions at the highest levels of income, I'm willing to give it a shot.


I agree we need to get our financial house in order. I don't agree that discouraging charitable giving is the smart way to do it.

quote:
Fair to me it means paying your fair share of taxes.


Don't worry: the people this legislation affects likely pay a higher amount of tax than you or I do in any event.

quote:
It's not fair to me, to pick up the slack from your giving. It's not fair that my children will inherit a huge national debt because you would rather give you money to PETA. Whatever happened to patriotic duty?


So giving to the Red Cross in the Katrina aftermath was just horrible of me? Those people who gave thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars were just looking to cheat Uncle Sam? Yeah. No patriotism there.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 10:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhh, no. The top 1% still pay about 40% of this nation's federal income tax and reported 22% of the nation's AGI as of 2006


According to the Congressional Budget Office the top 1% for individual tax liability

2001 34.5%
2002 33.3%
2003 33.6%
2004 32.3%
2005 31.6%
2006 31.0%
2007 30.4%
2008 29.8%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-Effe...

Page 11, table 2

Notice a pattern here?

Wage income $40,000 $200,000
Allowable deductions 8,450 51,430
Taxable income 31,550 148,570
Income tax 4,445 46,725
Effective rate 14% 31%

This would appear to be highly progressive - the person with the higher taxable income pays tax at twice the rate. However, if you divide the tax by the amount of gross income (i.e. before deductions), the effective rates are 11% and 23%: the higher income person's rate is still twice as high, but his deductions drive down the effective rate to a much greater degree.

Reduce the deductions (i.e. charitable contributions) in the top bracket, restore progressiveness.

quote:
So giving to the Red Cross in the Katrina aftermath was just horrible of me? Those people who gave thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars were just looking to cheat Uncle Sam? Yeah. No patriotism there.


No, and the change we are discussing probably would have made any difference in your tax liability (unless you gave millions) but Harvard University's endowment can support the entire cost of operation for the university for the next 100 years without a single dollar of tuition. All of those donations were tax deductible.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 10:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, if you divide the tax by the amount of gross income (i.e. before deductions), the effective rates are 11% and 23%: the higher income person's rate is still twice as high, but his deductions drive down the effective rate to a much greater degree.

Reduce the deductions (i.e. charitable contributions) in the top bracket, restore progressiveness.


So its still progressive, but not progressive enough for you... and you think that by taxing income that these evil rich people have the gall to just give away to charitable causes is the way to restore fairness. Wonderful. Why not just soak them up front and be done with it?

Doesn't matter in any event. Word is, its dead in the water.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/04/se...

"The Senate on Thursday voted unanimously to preserve the full charitable-giving deduction in the tax code, rejecting yet another key part of President Obama's strategy for paying for the ambitious spending programs in his 2010 budget."

quote:
No, and the change we are discussing probably would have made any difference in your tax liability (unless you gave millions)


I never said it would affect my tax liability. However, for those folks that may be inclined to give millions though, I don't see any need to try and soak them for more.

quote:
Harvard University's endowment can support the entire cost of operation for the university for the next 100 years without a single dollar of tuition. All of those donations were tax deductible.


I suspect thats a topic for a different debate.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 10:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So its still progressive, but not progressive enough for you... and you think that by taxing income that these evil rich people have the gall to just give away to charitable causes is the way to restore fairness. Wonderful. Why not just soak them up front and be done with it?


Ah, when presented with logical argument and facts ...

I don't view people in the top 1% of income earners as evil. I believe that the progressiveness of the tax code should not be effected by unlimited deductions. Obviously you don't.

From my point of view, it's a shame if Congress doesn't curtail the deductions. I hope they don't just print more dollars to make up for the difference in federal revenue. I'm actually a fiscal conservative.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 10:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, when presented with logical argument and facts ...

I don't view people in the top 1% of income earners as evil. I believe that the progressiveness of the tax code should not be effected by unlimited deductions. Obviously you don't.


Curious. Just a few posts back, you touted yourself as supporting a flat tax without deductions. What happened there? The rich are still paying more than their fair share by your numbers.

And yes, I think if a man earns a million dollars, lives like a monk, and gives the remainder to charity, the last thing he deserves is a massive tax bill as if he spent the money on booze and yachts.

quote:
From my point of view, it's a shame if Congress doesn't curtail the deductions. I hope they don't just print more dollars to make up for the difference in federal revenue. I'm actually a fiscal conservative.


Not only did the Senate reject it, they unanimously rejected it. Shocking.

PS: I'm also a fiscal conservative. I'm all for a balanced budget and paying off the debt. However, I think trying to tax charitable donations is a poor way of going about it.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 11:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Curious. Just a few posts back, you touted yourself as supporting a flat tax without deductions. What happened there?


Nothing changed. I believe in eliminating deductions. A flat tax that is progressive. No deductions or credits. Your gross income is x and you pay y. No need for Price, Waterhouse, Cooper. No tax havens, you pay your share and how you spend the rest of it is your business.

quote:
The rich are still paying more than their fair share by your numbers.


Maybe the point wasn't clear. If you only focus on the Adjusted Gross Income, you lose sight of the bigger picture. It's bad policy that 50% of the gross income is only subject to 40% of the taxes. That means that the other 50% have to pay 60% of the taxes.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/17/2009 12:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A flat tax that is progressive.


Curious... Last I checked, those two terms meant very different things: a flat tax being a constant rate regardless of income, and a progressive tax having a varying rate by income level.

quote:
If you only focus on the Adjusted Gross Income, you lose sight of the bigger picture.


Even if we look at the non-adjusted gross figures you posted, the "high earners" still pay a higher (more than double!) percentage than "low earners". In fact, if you look at the ratio between the percentages paid by the high earner versus the low earner, they barely budge when you look at taxes as a percentage of gross income or adjusted gross income.

quote:
It's bad policy that 50% of the gross income is only subject to 40% of the taxes. That means that the other 50% have to pay 60% of the taxes.


So the high earners should pay less taxes by your numbers! They're paying considerably more federal income tax both by absolute numbers and by percentage as your figures show.

For example, lets say you have 1 guy making 200k and 5 guys making 40k for a nice even 50/50 split.

The guy making 200k by your numbers paid 46,725.
The five guys making 40k combined paid 4445*5=22225.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/17/2009 12:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
There have been a lot of different proposals for flat tax. Some as you indicate have focused on everyone paying the same percentage, some exclude all deductions and credits. I obviously prefer the later.

Once again your just focusing on the gross income. Not total income. Without limits on deductions, the numbers are skewed.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/17/2009 12:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, too tired. Your focusing on Adjusted Gross Income not gross income.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/17/2009 8:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not focusing on adjusted income.

From your post

quote:
This would appear to be highly progressive - the person with the higher taxable income pays tax at twice the rate. However, if you divide the tax by the amount of gross income (i.e. before deductions), the effective rates are 11% and 23%: the higher income person's rate is still twice as high


Regardless of whether you look at AGI or just gross income, the high earner pays double the taxes by percentage. Your posts aren't making any sense.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/17/2009 8:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Lets make it real simple here...

From your post:
quote:
Wage income $40,000 $200,000
Allowable deductions 8,450 51,430
Taxable income 31,550 148,570
Income tax 4,445 46,725
Effective rate 14% 31%


Lets just ignore the deductions, and focus on the flat rate like you propose. With straight division, the high earner pays 23.3625% of his 200,000 gross income in taxes. To be at the same flat rate with no deductions, the low earner would need to pay $9345.

By your very example, the rich are paying considerably more in absolute terms and in terms of rates, regardless of whether the tax paid is compared to the AGI or gross income.

What is complicated about this?

11.1125% < 23.3625%. If you think a flat tax with no deductions is ideal, but you think the rich aren't paying their fair share, then nobody else is paying their fair share either.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/17/2009 8:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
One last thing.

Lets look at how much the ratios of tax paid are skewed by deductions.

As a percentage of AGI: 31.4498% vrs 14.0887%

Ratio between the two rates: 2.2322

As a percentage of Gross Income: 23.3625% vrs 11.1125%

Ratio between the two rates: 2.1023

As you notice, the ratio of percentage of tax paid by the high earner and the low earner doesn't substantially change when comparing the tax rate based off gross income or adjusted gross income.

That somehow these high earners are getting out of paying taxes by giving to charity is baloney. It's about as likely to happen as them taking millions in pay cuts because it's just easier not to pay the taxes.

And really, the sick thing about Obama's plan was that it is nothing more than a veiled tax on charities themselves, which he knew damn well he couldn't do directly. But if their funding went down, he could always blame those greedy high earners for not being extra generous. The only impressive part about is that so many of those high earners polled said they wouldn't reduce their contributions in spite of the tax: that isn't some sort of weird stamp of approval on Obama's plan; that's a testament to the generosity of those high income Americans.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
This may get lengthy, so please stay with me. Here's what proposed IL amendment would have said. Included is what the actual federal law says. They are essentially 100% identical once you remove the language for the federal government vs the State of Illinois.

quote:
Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]
107th Congress

An Act
To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36. Born-alive infant.]

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant [Illinois: lacks this section heading]
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or
of any ruling [Illinois: rule] , regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State] , the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include [Illinois: include] every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such [Illinois: that] expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut,, [Illinois: no comma] and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’. [Illinois: Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.]


Here's a link to the IL Senate Committee Action Report showing Obama voted against the amendment: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amend... He is flat out lying when he says he would have supported the US statute but that the IL one was different. The effort was made to make them identical, he, as the committee chairman, refused to allow the bills to be made identical.

I hope this makes things more clear for you.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 5:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Here is some common ground.

We both agree that President Obama voted against Illinois SB 1082 in all forms in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

We both agree that the language was modified from it's original 2001/2002 form in 2003.

We both can agree that amendment 001 in SB 1082 (2003) was essentially the same language between that bill and the federal version.

This is where we disagree:

Do you contend that Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 does not protect a fetus that survives a failed abortion? If not why? I believe it does. President Obama has publicly gone on record supporting that legislation. That fact alone, invalidates your contention that he wants to let aborted babies die. I don't believe that not supporting SB 1082 makes anyone guilty of infanticide as you contend. If you publicly accuse someone of infanticide you should have more than just conjecture.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 6:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by nbourbaki on April 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Do you contend that Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 does not protect a fetus that survives a failed abortion? If not why? I believe it does. President Obama has publicly gone on record supporting that legislation. That fact alone, invalidates your contention that he wants to let aborted babies die. I don't believe that not supporting SB 1082 makes anyone guilty of infanticide as you contend. If you publicly accuse someone of infanticide you should have more than just conjecture.
Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed the Illinois BAIPA because it declared a "previable fetus" to be a legal person – even though the bill only did so if the baby had achieved “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.” (Obama’s statements are quoted verbatim further on in this white paper.) The old Illinois law in question (720 ILCS 510.6) covered only situations where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such “sustained survival” – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of “viability”)

I have to also point out that Obama supports overturning the "partial-birth" abortion ban. You probably know that Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this procedure as close to infanticide as you can get. Mr. Moynihan was no conservative, far from it.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 6:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
covered only situations where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.”


I think That's a misrepresentation of Illinios 720 ILCS 510.6

(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

There's no qualification of predetermining if the fetus was viable to provide proper care.

you can review the entire text of the law here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072...

As far as overturning the Partial-Birth abortion ban, President Obama has publicly supported the ban as long as there is an exception in cases to preserve the life of the mother.

I agree with his position.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 8:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as overturning the Partial-Birth abortion ban, President Obama has publicly supported the ban as long as there is an exception in cases to preserve the life of the mother.

I agree with his position.

I believe you'll find he says the health of the mother. HUGE, HUGE difference. In the US this is essentially any excuse she wants, any. I'm sorry to read you support that.

Pre-election news quote:
quote:
Though he wasn't in Congress at the time it voted on the ban, he said he would have supported it had it contained a health exception.

Another quote:
quote:
On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 8:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe you'll find he says the health of the mother. HUGE, HUGE difference. In the US this is essentially any excuse she wants, any. I'm sorry to read you support that.


I've seen interviews with Obama where he uses the term "health" and "Life". I don't buy the contention that the intent of this protection is as you described, "any excuse that she wants".

I respect your desire to protect all life. I don't care for the polarizing and demonizing that sometimes accompanies those positions. Saying President Obama wants doctors to let aborted babies die, is untrue, polarizing and nonconstructive. It reduces someone who has lead a moral and productive life to a caricature.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 10:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I respect your desire to protect all life. I don't care for the polarizing and demonizing that sometimes accompanies those positions. Saying President Obama wants doctors to let aborted babies die, is untrue, polarizing and nonconstructive. It reduces someone who has lead a moral and productive life to a caricature.
Woah, I'm not saying Obama WANTS doctors to let babies die, I'm saying he's OK with not forcing the doctors to save babies "born alive". Big, big difference.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 10:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood your original post

quote:
Obama thinks doctors should be allowed to put aside a baby that survives an abortion and let it die.


Maybe I'm missing an important distinction you're making. President Obama has publicly stated he supports Illinios 720 ILCS 510.6

(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

Based on the law that's in effect and supported by Obama, I can't get to, " he's OK with not forcing the doctors to save babies "born alive"

If the issue is his opposition to the Illinois BAIPA. He's been in office for less than 100 days. He'll have plenty of time to establish a real record on the subject. I'm not jumping to a conclusion on his moral character based on BAIPA alone.

Going back to the original impetus for this long thread, I still haven't seen anything to lead me to believe he's the most liberal president. So far, he's taken a pretty even handed approach to the issues he's addressed.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Under the clause, if a woman's life was at risk in an emergency situation, a physician could refuse to perform an abortion that would save the woman's life. I strongly disagree with that application of the law.


Clearly, so many "emergency abortions" come along where there is 0 time to find a willing physician, and an unwilling doctor would need to be forced to do something s/he thought was morally reprehensible.

"Quick doc, if this baby isn't dead and gone in an hour, my parents will kill me!!!!"

Of course, I'd also have to wonder how many doctors wouldn't do the procedure if it were the only way to save at least one of the two lives, given that if the mother dies, the baby probably isn't going too far in any event.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 7:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly, so many "emergency abortions" come along where there is 0 time to find a willing physician, and an unwilling doctor would need to be forced to do something s/he thought was morally reprehensible.


I believe a doctor in private practice should be able to decline certain procedures on moral grounds. 99.9% of the time, if you don't agree, you can go to another doctor and no one's is hurt. Trauma care physician in a public hospital (that's receiving public funds) are different. As a physician you should know up front that you will not be allowed to be the attending physician in a trauma center if there are procedures you morally refuse to perform. Everybody's happy. People get the care they need and doctors don't have to perform procedures they object to on moral grounds. You don't put a conscientious objector on sentry duty in a combat zone.

If that's the kind of change President Obama is proposing, I agree.


RE: Little incentive
By Steve1981 on 4/16/2009 7:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Having worked at a trauma center for a few years: I suspect it wouldn't be up to the on call trauma doc to perform an abortion under most circumstances in any event. The on call OB/GYN, yeah.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 9:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
So exactly what's your beef with the National Labor Relations Act? You've brought this up in a number of threads. Do you oppose the 40 hour work week? Do you oppose a minimum wage? Are you against giving people the right to form unions?

I don't see much impact from that bill today. You don't see many new unions being formed in this country. Total union membership has dropped steadily over the last 40 years.

Compared to almost every other first world country, the US is relatively free of unionized labor.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 12:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by nbourbaki on April 15, 2009 at 9:20 PM So exactly what's your beef with the National Labor Relations Act? You've brought this up in a number of threads. Do you oppose the 40 hour work week? Do you oppose a minimum wage? Are you against giving people the right to form unions? I don't see much impact from that bill today. You don't see many new unions being formed in this country. Total union membership has dropped steadily over the last 40 years.
OK, let's start at the beginning, the Wagner Act in 1935 is not necessarily in and of itself bad, but the way it's applied is not equal across the board (talk to railroad employees to get an idea). However, that act, combined with the Two Fleets rule passed in 1975, does indeed hurt the auto makers more than Mom and Dad's moving company. Remember, my mentioning of the act is in reference to the US auto makers, not mom and pop businesses that may or may not have union labor. The auto makers are forced to use union labor due to the combination of the act and the rule. Here's a quote from the Pew Campaign for Fuel Effeciancy (not exactly a right wing group):
quote:
The United Auto Workers (UAW) and domestic automakers, on the other hand, claim that dropping the two-fleet rule would cost U.S. jobs. They argue that the rule ensures that full-line auto manufacturers must maintain small car production in North America to balance out production of larger, less efficient vehicles. However, an attribute-based system – where vehicles meet different standards based on size – would eliminate an automaker’s pressure to balance out large and small vehicle production.
The above quote can be found here: http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/pdf/all-about-the...

The UAW is itself saying that the Two Fleets rule forces the formerly Big 3 to use more expensive union labor. If they could the Detroit companies would make more cars elsewhere due to lower labor costs. Not only that, there are exemptions to the rule that also help the non-US car makers. It costs more for the Detroit companies to make cars, pure and simple. And that added cost causes cuts to be made elsewhere, and for 20 years or so those cuts generally were in quality and design. Thankfully that's been changing at places like GM, as cars like the Malibu get rave reviews and compare quite well to the Japanese offerings.

I'm tired, I hope this makes sense, if not, just shoot me.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 12:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, let's start at the beginning, the Wagner Act in 1935 is not necessarily in and of itself bad, but the way it's applied is not equal across the board (talk to railroad employees to get an idea). However, that act, combined with the Two Fleets rule passed in 1975, does indeed hurt the auto makers more than Mom and Dad's moving company. Remember, my mentioning of the act is in reference to the US auto makers, not mom and pop businesses that may or may not have union labor. The auto makers are forced to use union labor due to the combination of the act and the rule. Here's a quote from the Pew Campaign for Fuel Effeciancy (not exactly a right wing group):


So here is my problem with that analysis. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 amended the Wagner Act and greatly restricted the power and activities of the labor unions in the US.

The Taft-Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, "common situs" picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass "right-to-work laws" that outlawed union shops.

I'd really like to understand how Wagner as amended by Taft-Hartley curtails GM in dealing with the UAW. I honestly believe that GM just doesn't have the balls to put the screws to the UAW. It's not a legal challenge, it's all about having the stones to do what needs to be done.

As far as the dropping the two fleet status quo. I don't believe that we can continue to import 60% of our oil from countries that hate our guts at whatever price they want to charge. So I would like to see a real effort to reduce consumption. If that means the elimination of the two fleet rule, so be it. Conservation isn't going to solve this problem by itself. I think we need to also significantly expand domestic production. Drill everywhere, eliminate all the barriers to increased domestic production. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? If Alaskans don't give a sh*t, why should I? I don't want to choose between conservation and increased production, I want both. You want to put people back to work? Start building Nuclear power plants. Spent nuclear fuel? Reprocess it.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 2:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UAW is itself saying that the Two Fleets rule forces the formerly Big 3 to use more expensive union labor.


Eliminating the two-fleet rule that has chained big three automakers to high-wage union plants in the U.S. would give them normal leverage over costs and help restore the American auto industry, writes Holman W. Jenkins Jr. in the Wall Street Journal.

In 1973 GM, Ford and Chrysler lobbied hard for the two tier system for CAFE. They did this to avoid the penalties associated with failing to meet the more stringent fuel economy standard of the lighter vehicles. Now the two tier system is a union problem.


RE: Little incentive
By BPB on 4/16/2009 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by nbourbaki on April 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM
In 1973 GM, Ford and Chrysler lobbied hard for the two tier system for CAFE. They did this to avoid the penalties associated with failing to meet the more stringent fuel economy standard of the lighter vehicles. Now the two tier system is a union problem.
Interesting, I read that article when it was printed. It doesn't go deep at all into the rules and the history, but does mention it was almost eliminated recently but ended up being kept. Think about it, what you are saying is GM was stupid for doing what it thought best 36 years ago! It's not like folks were predicting the current environment concerning the manufacturing of autos back then. Back then Honda was a joke. The first cars they sold here were a constant source of jokes and ridicule. Needless to say, they turned that around. But to blame the US industry for doing what it though best 36 years ago is not very fair. They pushed for the best they thought they could get at the time.


RE: Little incentive
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 8:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
It a little hard to follow now because of all of the intervening posts, but I was commenting on this:

quote:
There's also the Wagner act from 1935 and Congress's 1975 fuel economy law which created the "two fleets" rule. You may want to read up on these things. Combined they force Detroit's big three to use expensive union labor at the cost of profitability.


The Wagner Act 1935 was amended by the Taft-Hartley act and really neutered Wagner. As far as CAFE, sorry if I gave the impression that the auto industry only lobbied in 1973. They've successfully lobbied against raising CAFE and abolishing the two fleet rule for 30 years.

I don't view either Wagner or CAFE to be a significant factor in the current state of GM. They are both just noise.


RE: Little incentive
By AntiM on 4/15/2009 10:32:42 AM , Rating: 5
Whether they know it or not, the UAW has a lot of incentive to accept practically any offer that's put in front of them. There's already a large amount of sentiment against the UAW and their stubborness. If the American auto industry fails, so does the UAW.

I'm sure I make less than most of those workers, but if my job and my company were in jeopardy, I would gladly take a 20% pay cut. I'm not sure what concessions they're being asked to make, but if they think they can make a better living doing something else, then why don't they quit Chrysler and go do it. There are plenty of unemployed Americans that would happily take their place.


RE: Little incentive
By etherreal on 4/15/2009 2:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I would gladly take a pay cut to ensure the survival of the company I work for. It has been a tough year, I have seen plenty friends get laid off, and a lot of our benefits get slashed.

The point is, do whatever it takes to make your business competitive enough for survival.


Damn these American commies
By Aloonatic on 4/15/2009 9:50:38 AM , Rating: 5
When will you realise that capitalism and the free market won the cold war? Get with the program America and sort your unions out. :D




RE: Damn these American commies
By ninus3d on 4/15/2009 9:57:03 AM , Rating: 5
I believe Fiat is Italian and the government in the USA, including the democrats, are quite far right compared to most European countries.

I'm in love with social democracy cause it just works so incredibly well in my country (Norway) but I have come to realize that we have been blessed by not having certain conditions that for example England, where I live now, is cursed with.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Aloonatic on 4/15/2009 10:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my bad, I should have put the obligatory /joking tag in there.

I think you may have been somewhat spoilt in Norway though. All that oil money in a small an (admittedly) well run country has meant that your government could afford to do a great deal more than larger or non oil rich countries are able to.

On the general point of social democracies, they have their plus points and negatives. England is a case in point, kinda socialist (compared to America) but also kinda capitalist (compared to much of Europe) and some things work, others don't. The NHS is a great thing and must never go, but the welfare system here is a joke. Too many compromises are made and it doesn't really seem to be working in general, leading to the mess that is no doubt obvious for you to see as an outsider living here.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 10:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe Fiat is Italian and the government in the USA, including the democrats, are quite far right compared to most European countries.
In terms of economic policy, not social. The UK has cameras everywhere and policies so invasive they make the already unpopular PATRIOT act look tame.

quote:
I'm in love with social democracy cause it just works so incredibly well in my country (Norway) but I have come to realize that we have been blessed by not having certain conditions that for example England, where I live now, is cursed with.
You've actually touched on an incredible point that I wish more people understood at home and abroad. Economic policy to a great extent has to be about what works for a given location -- not just ideology. What works in Norway might not work in the UK; what works in the UK might not work in the US; what works in the US might not work in Norway.


RE: Damn these American commies
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/15/2009 12:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:

I believe Fiat is Italian and the government in the USA, including the democrats, are quite far right compared to most European countries.


In terms of economic policy, not social. The UK has cameras everywhere and policies so invasive they make the already unpopular PATRIOT act look tame.


Let's remember before more people get into a pointless debate that the far right (i.e. Nazi Germany) is essentially the same thing in practice as the far left (i.e. Stalinist Russia), so its a moot point to argue that xxx is really far left or alternatively really far right -- they're the same thing -- a totalitarian state.

quote:
You've actually touched on an incredible point that I wish more people understood at home and abroad. Economic policy to a great extent has to be about what works for a given location -- not just ideology. What works in Norway might not work in the UK; what works in the UK might not work in the US; what works in the US might not work in Norway.


One of the best things I've heard in a while, absolutely true. Democracy has been great for the U.S., but it hasn't taken hold/worked out plenty of other places. Democracy is inheritantly a moderately social liberal form of government (compared to religious-based gov'ts or dictatorships) so it requires a certain base prosperity -- which certain nations like Iraq lack. Likewise, socialism is even more liberal and requires in turn even MORE base prosperity -- only a region like Norway in which the stand of living is already so high can see it through to success. The U.S. just doesn't have a high enough standard of living, per capita, to adopt socialism on a broad scale. It certainly nice to strive towards that, just like nations like Iraq strive towards Democracy, but its pointless to get ahead of ourselves.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
But Stalinist/Leninist states are not far left socially. They are far left economically. They are far right socially. Social democracies tend to be far left socially and economically.

Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both far right socially - totalitarian states with no civil liberties -- but complete opposites economically. Even under Hitler Germany had a relatively free economy -- Hitler took power partially because Germans were so afraid of Communism.

But it's all semantics anyway. My point was that most of Europe is more socially restrictive than the United States, with a few glaring exceptions.

quote:
One of the best things I've heard in a while, absolutely true. Democracy has been great for the U.S., but it hasn't taken hold/worked out plenty of other places. Democracy is inheritantly a moderately social liberal form of government (compared to religious-based gov'ts or dictatorships) so it requires a certain base prosperity -- which certain nations like Iraq lack. Likewise, socialism is even more liberal and requires in turn even MORE base prosperity -- only a region like Norway in which the stand of living is already so high can see it through to success. The U.S. just doesn't have a high enough standard of living, per capita, to adopt socialism on a broad scale. It certainly nice to strive towards that, just like nations like Iraq strive towards Democracy, but its pointless to get ahead of ourselves.
Glad to see that I am not the only American who doesn't think we should let ideology totally dominate economic policy. The media and many politicians boil down economic debate to Reaganomics vs full-blown Socialism, which is just ridiculous when what works best for everyone is almost always in-between.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Noya on 4/15/2009 8:41:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The U.S. just doesn't have a high enough standard of living, per capita, to adopt socialism on a broad scale.


Why? Because the US has the largest wealth gap in any western country, with the top half of one percent controlling something like 60-70% of the wealth. Blame it on corporate lobbyists, excessive higher education costs or a pathetic public school system...but the gap continues to grow.


RE: Damn these American commies
By derwin on 4/16/2009 1:25:05 PM , Rating: 3
I for one blame it on learned lethargy. Corporite lobbists my rear end - you cannot choose to be rich, but you surely can choose to not be poor. The US has one of the largest wealth gaps because we have systems which are so broken that they actually encourage people to stay in poverty (if you make more than the welfare level, you receive NONE of your welfare).

People need to work hard. People need to work. People need a reason to work. People need a reason to work hard.


RE: Damn these American commies
By banvetor on 4/18/2009 9:26:46 AM , Rating: 3
You got to a very interesting point and I totally agree with you. Here in Brazil the problem is even deeper: it's not only that our politics encourage people to stay poor and not work, but we have also a underlying culture where not working hard is praised and working hard and being successful is deplored.


RE: Damn these American commies
By cnar77 on 4/19/2009 10:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
We have to remember the UK has been fighting its own war with the IRA for some time. Bombings in the UK is nothing new. If anything it has subsided somewhat as generations get older and younger persons integrate. However the UK has had to do what was required to protect its population.


By ActionParsnip on 4/15/2009 1:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, makes me laugh when people rant on here about 'socialist democrats', in our eyes theyre just less right-wing right-wingers.

A uk citizen


RE: Damn these American commies
By Ammohunt on 4/16/2009 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 4
Socialism works so well in Norway it is a Mono cultural, small country and not a melting pot like the US. Speckle Norway with good dose of people from other cultures and watch your Socialist Utopia crumble and fail.


RE: Damn these American commies
By matt0401 on 4/18/2009 6:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
What about Canada? We tend to use the "mosaic" style of accepting other cultures rather than the "melting pot" style but both countries have very diverse cultures. Socialism works well here it seems. Admittedly, we aren't quite up there with Norway and the other high-quality-of-life Scandinavian countries but we're getting there.


RE: Damn these American commies
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 10:04:25 AM , Rating: 4
Organized labor has been part of our free market system since the late 19th century. So by extension to your logic, organized labor won the cold war?


RE: Damn these American commies
By walk2k on 4/15/2009 12:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Did America really win? Or did it just take a little longer for their economy to come crashing down.


RE: Damn these American commies
By rcc on 4/15/2009 4:35:34 PM , Rating: 5
Twinkies existed for the duration of the cold war. Clearly then, Twinkies won the cold war.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Yawgm0th on 4/15/2009 5:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
Twinkies would win a nuclear war. How can we even pretend to compare to Twinkies?


RE: Damn these American commies
By Proteusza on 4/15/2009 10:21:57 AM , Rating: 5
If they really believed in free markets, the banks would have been allowed to fall.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 10:28:17 AM , Rating: 3
You're right. And we should have let them fail. Politics is an inherently unreasonable process.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Radnor on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Damn these American commies
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 11:34:58 AM , Rating: 5
...what? If you're trying to say that capitalism and communism are in fact the same thing, then the only thing pure and free is the air between your ears.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Radnor on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Damn these American commies
By callmeroy on 4/16/2009 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
He is right at least that most folks commonly assume captialism as a form of government, just like folks commonly assume a tomato is a veggie (by definition its actually a fruit).

So in that sense the guy is right comparing communism right to capitalism isn't really a fair comparision -- one is a political philosophy and the other is a monetary/financial philosophy. Capitialism is neutral to government.

He's also not loopy for suggesting we could face double digit inflation in the states....some economists have theorized using current trends and forecasting models that we could be in for up to 12% inflation over the next few years. For those who don't know what that means...12% wouldn't be bad...it would be devastating....


RE: Damn these American commies
By MozeeToby on 4/15/2009 11:46:16 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry but there is a huge difference between Anarcho-Capitalism (which is what you're talking about when you say Pure, Free, etc.) and Communism. And by huge, I mean massive; as in there are no two economic theories which are further apart from each other (well, other than maybe Anarcho-Capitalism and Fascism are further).

You should read Snow Crash, it's by far the best description of an Anarcho-Capitalistic society that I've ever read; even if the plot does get a bit esoteric at times.


RE: Damn these American commies
By Golgatha on 4/17/2009 11:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
Even though this is off topic. Snow Crash is an excellent read.


RE: Damn these American commies
By jcbond on 4/16/2009 9:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
The dealings between Fiat and Chrysler may be destined to fall through, but I found what the Obama administration did to be particularly galling:
They told Chrysler that they had to make a deal in as public a manner possible. Is there anyway better to remove any negotiating power that Chrysler at one point had? It so obviously undercut Chryler's negotiating position that I have to wonder if they did this to deliberately kill Chrysler. Maybe they think automotives are bad business to be in or something.
Also, the UAW is not responsible for Canada. The CAW is a separate entity. I think they used to be part of the UAW but split from them a few decades ago. And they may have limited exposure to Chrylser - I can only recall an assembly and stamping plant (Charger/Challenger) near TO and an engine plant in Windsor. If they can preserve their position against Ford and GM (if they are still in business), maybe it's worth it overall to cut bait with Chrysler. Does anyone have any insight into what the CAW is doing?


The only rational solution...
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 5
...is to completely de-unionize. Of all the factors that an automaker could possibly have control over, the ludicrously overpriced union labor is by far the biggest one.

If I were Fiat, or anyone else eying one of the big 3, there would be only one possible way I'd consider any kind of partnership, merger, or takeover...toss the unions.

We've gone through this before at length in previous DT articles. Union labor is maniacally overpriced. Cutting it to market levels would make massive differences in the prifitability of automakers, even leaving everything else as is. And personally, I am sick of seeing towns and companies utterly destroyed by union shenanigans that force their employers out of business or out of the country. Stupid, stupid rat creatures.

If letting Chrysler go bankrupt is the only way to truly oust the unions, then let it go bankrupt. Then Fiat (or whoever) can purchase their assets, like the brand names, manufacturing facilities, parts stock, etc., and bring everything up fresh without the baggage of the past. Naturally there's a pre-trained work force that will be looking to have jobs at said facilities right away as well...just post a sign at the door saying "Union-Free Zone" and call it good.




RE: The only rational solution...
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 11:14:27 AM , Rating: 5
Ain't gonna happen.

Did you know all the construction work that's called for in the "stimulus" plan will likely have to be done with union labor?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/health...

I know you were talking about the auto industry but as I said above, this is why the government bailed them out. Doing so gives them a hand to play in the bankruptcy in order to protect the unions. Obama doesn't want to lose the union votes. So the tax payers get sold out and the unions get to stay.


RE: The only rational solution...
By Doormat on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: The only rational solution...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2009 12:07:15 PM , Rating: 5
Like it's not a fact ?

Did you know Obama is passing legislation that will remove the Union secret ballot ? Why do you think the voting is secret now !

Do you get it ? Obama is purposely making it so the Unions can intimidate their way into any business by removing the secret vote, this is what will happen. This is what happened before, and it's why the secret vote was created.

Corruption, intimidation, lack of choice. Sounds like a great policy !


RE: The only rational solution...
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 10:51:31 PM , Rating: 4
As far as I know, the Card Check legislation hasn't even been introduced in either the Senate or House. So it's a little early for the president to be signing a non-existent law. And frankly while I don't support that legislation, who cares? Do you honestly believe it's going to reverse the decline in membership the unions have been facing for the last 40 years? No, if it ever passes I'll predict right here in this public forum that it will have no positive effect for organized labor in this country. None.

quote:
Corruption, intimidation, lack of choice. Sounds like a great policy !


Nah, we got rid of those clowns.


RE: The only rational solution...
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 11:45:01 AM , Rating: 5
Outlaw the unions and then there are no union votes to worry about.

See my above post about certifying/licensing skilled workers. Above and beyond that, someone needs to step up and protect our society from the effects of unionization...which, to put a point on it, are the loss of jobs to foreign countries and the destabilization of our own industries.


RE: The only rational solution...
By cerx on 4/16/2009 10:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Outlaw the unions

Why, so the CEO's make even more money? And there's an even larger gap between the top and the bottom?

The UAW is causing all sorts of troubles for the big 3. Ford had their own issues a couple years ago so they're better off now, with lower-costing workers. But don't lump all unions in with this one.


RE: The only rational solution...
By rcc on 4/16/2009 4:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
I don't work union. Most skilled labor doesn't. However, I've had to interact with quite a few, and it's never been a useful experience.

I've run into the "no, we can't change that light bulb" problem. Or "no, we can't carry that over to the other building to test it, we have to call the Stewards", etc.

So, while I'm willing to entertain the thought that not all unions are pimples on the ass of progress, experiences has shown me otherwise.


RE: The only rational solution...
By Bateluer on 4/15/2009 11:17:36 AM , Rating: 5
I agree entirely with you, but you'll have to drag the unions kicking and screaming to the crematorium.


RE: The only rational solution...
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 11:35:54 AM , Rating: 5
I'll pull one leg if you pull the other.


RE: The only rational solution...
By crleap on 4/15/2009 1:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well put. I saw a biggest-company list the other day, and there were 2 foreign carmakers on there in the top 15 (sprinkled among the gas/oil companies). Goes to show that the auto industry isn't broken, just the American version of it. Ever heard of Darwin? The days of $30/hr menial labor are simply gone in the U.S.


We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Indianapolis on 4/15/2009 9:57:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
auto enthusiasts would love to see it happen, both in that it would keep Chrysler alive and that it would bring new European cars to America. If Fiat can reach a deal it will bring its Cinquecento (500) car, wildly popular in Europe, to the States next year.


I guess I consider myself an "auto enthusiast", but after I googled "Fiat Cinquecento", I didn't see much to be enthused about. Probably a great car for Europe, but it looks to me like a suitcase on wheels.

http://img2.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0711/16d13b...




By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 10:04:42 AM , Rating: 1
If they survive they'll be able to keep making the Challenger. At least until the government doesn't let them due to fuel economy standards and emissions laws.


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Iaiken on 4/15/2009 10:29:22 AM , Rating: 3
Way to stereotype... If you're ok with forming an opinion of an companies entire product line off of one car then I would be amazed if you could find a single company worth saving...

http://www.fiat.com/FIAT_COM/uploads/PB_TMPL_SHOWR...

Even the Ferrari brand had some ugly bastard sons, remember the Ferrari 400?

http://www.forza288.com/ferraris/ferrari_pictures/...


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Indianapolis on 4/15/2009 2:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
Would you care to explain why the Fiat Linea (which is the car you linked to) is something that American auto enthusiasts should be excited about?

The Linea is not a bad looking car (looks very similar to the Chevy Malibu to me), but it's still a small 4-door with a small engine. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I was addressing the line in the article that claimed that "auto enthusiasts would love" to see Fiat come to our shores. They then mentioned the Fiat 500 to backup the claim.


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Exedore on 4/15/2009 2:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of different types of "auto enthusiasts". As for the Fiat 500, the "Enthusiast" version is the Abarth model:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_080...

The standard model Fiat 500 would be an excellent replacement for that POS Smart Four Two.


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Spuke on 4/15/2009 3:56:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are a lot of different types of "auto enthusiasts".
No there aren't. Auto enthusiasts like cars, period. But auto enthusiasts are NOT required to like EVERY single damn car! And as such can form any opinion they so choose. The guy doesn't like the 500 and he's got every right to say so. I like the 500 but would not buy it as I'm not interested in any FWD cars for the time being.


By Exedore on 4/15/2009 4:16:20 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I disagree. But I think we are disagreeing on semantics. I say there are different types of "auto enthusiasts", such as the kids who like the big wings and fat exhausts (ricers), to the people who enjoy the Fiats from the '70s, to the muscle car enthusiasts, etc. Each group likes different types and models of cars, so I just called them different types of auto enthusiasts.
It wasn't me who made the blanket statement that "auto enthusiasts" wouldn't like this car. I pointed out that "auto enthusiasts" are a varied group, and so some would certainly like it. Each "enthusiast" can form his own opinion.


By Spuke on 4/15/2009 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Way to stereotype... If you're ok with forming an opinion of an companies entire product
Um. He actually mentioned a particular car not the entire car line. He even posted a pic of the car in question. Where did you get "Way to stereotype" crap from?


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By nbourbaki on 4/15/2009 11:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the Ferrari brand had some ugly bastard sons, remember the Ferrari 400?


Maybe compared to other Ferrari's that's an ugly car. Anyone remember the Pontiac Aztek?

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


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By jcbond on 4/16/2009 8:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
:-D
I did some work at the plant that made the Aztek. I had always thought it was one ugly car. I was talking with one of the guys that I was working and kinda brought up the topic of what they thought of the car. He just laughed it off and said "Don't talk about how it looks! We want to get another shift running!".
Plainly the guys that made it thought it was one ugly awkward looking SOB. The Buick version looked better... But not by a lot.
I remember that the time the designers were said to be going for something controversial - a love it or hate it kind of design. Well, they got the second part right.
It looked ugly, had an awkward interior, and bad sightlines for the driver (big blind spots).


By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 11:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
For a few months, every week I wound up with an Aztek at Avis. It seemed like the only vehicle that Avis had on the lot in Hartford was the Aztek. I was talking to the manager one week and he told me that Pontiac had dumped thousands to the rental companies at ridiculously cheap prices because they couldn't sell them anywhere else.


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By ice456789 on 4/15/2009 10:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, I think I could fit one of those in the trunk of my Tahoe. No wonder they are wildly popular!


By Indianapolis on 4/15/2009 2:12:09 PM , Rating: 3
No kidding. I just realized that my 2-car garage is actually a 4-car garage.


By Trippytiger on 4/15/2009 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXALDprqcuc

That might illuminate why this car is a big deal (for those who like small cars).

Please, Fiat, bring us the Abarth SS!


RE: We're supposed to be excited abut THIS?
By Sandok on 4/16/2009 10:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Auto enthousiast and you didn't know about the Fiat 500?...

It's in the same class as Mini and if I recall well, the Mini is selling quite well, even though it's "a suitecase on wheels" as you put it. Actually, Mini has outdone almost every other car manufacturer in the US this year, which is not bad for a company with a handful of models.

Oh, and don't forget, if Fiat can enter the US market, we FINALLY get Alfa Romeo!!!


By Spuke on 4/16/2009 11:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Auto enthousiast and you didn't know about the Fiat 500?...
It's not sold in the US and some people don't keep up with vehicles they can't buy. I used to but I know I've slacked off quite a bit. I get tired of getting my hopes up. I only know about the 500 because there's talk of it coming here if Chrysler and Fiat merge. I showed it to my wife and she likes it. I would only get the Abarth SS though.


By RolfSchewe on 4/15/2009 10:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
I hope the CEOs are as willing to "cut costs" just as they are asking the union workers. It wouldn't be fair to ask factory workers to take a pay cut while the CEOs are not willing to do so themselves. What's fair is fair and everyone in the company should sacrifice to stay in business. One less helicopter, yacht or smaller McMansion won't kill the CEOs.

You can't be eating caviar while you are asking people to volunteer for a pay cut.

It's time for everyone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" as they say. And that means everybody.




By acase on 4/15/2009 11:09:08 AM , Rating: 3
While I agree they probably should take some paycuts, at least CEO's and upper management (i'm assuming) have degrees and did something (really assuming) to get where they are.


By RolfSchewe on 4/15/2009 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 3
I would be careful to attribute to much praise ton the CEOs.

You can't be hostile to unions while fluffing the CEOs. The solution has to be fair, evenhanded and all encompassing.

The reason why these companies is not solely the fault of union worker salaries and benefits and it's burden on these companies. Management has been poor as well, and that is putting it mildly.

People know what is a good car and the marketplace has decided that American cars are not that.

These sacrifices have to be shared by everyone in the companies. I am just tired of this political rhetoric and union bashing while totally turning a blind eye to CEO greed and unjustified pay.


By wempa on 4/15/2009 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 5
This is true. CEO/executive level salaries have gotten way, WAY out of hand in recent years. This is especially so when you consider that all they are doing is taking risks and making guesses as to what will benefit the company. Look at the track record of CEOs and you will see that success is very hit-or-miss, yet their pay continues to rise dramatically.


By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 1:15:51 PM , Rating: 1
CEOs should be paid whatever the board of directors is stupid enough to pay them.


By Spuke on 4/15/2009 4:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CEOs should be paid whatever the board of directors is stupid enough to pay them.
I agree. We have no business telling companies how to run themselves or how to pay their employees. If their respective boards decide to overpay for an employees skillset, that's their business. The only exception is when they come asking for our money. Then they conform to our rules until it's paid back. And, yes, I know that they shouldn't asking nor should we be giving them money. Please don't bother mentioning that. It's been said, ad nauseam, so please let that horse die with dignity.


By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 12:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have no business telling companies how to run themselves or how to pay their employees.


Corporate boards cannot self regulate. If you want examples look at Worldcom, Enron, Merrill Lynch, or AIG. Corporate governance is as broken as the UAW.


By Spuke on 4/16/2009 11:28:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Corporate boards cannot self regulate.
I don't care. It's THEIR company. If they want to run it into the ground. That's THEIR business. There are PLENTY of other businesses that are not interested in running themselves into the ground. And those survive and flourish. Let the rest of the sh!t get flushed down the toilet where it belongs!


By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's THEIR company


It's the shareholder's company. The problem is that the boards have become so insular that they believe it is their company. The problem is that shareholders rights have eroded to the point that the legal owners of a publicly traded company have little to no voice in executive compensation.


Unions should be banished - for good!
By KingConker on 4/15/2009 10:16:17 AM , Rating: 5
Here in the UK unions do nothing but resist change in the face of improving the efficiency & profitability of companies.

All his whilst they pretend to protect & defend levels of service to the public whilst thousands of these 'members' (and they truly are members) are employed in stupefyingly unnecessary roles that anyone outside of the organisation can clearly see are not required.

Examples of badly run organisations because of Union idiocy:

The Post Office
The Train Companies
Teaching

Gees...




RE: Unions should be banished - for good!
By ActionParsnip on 4/15/2009 1:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
Erm teaching? come again?!

Im in the uk and my mother is a primary school teacher, and i can tell you the job sucks ass. Id love to hear your explanation as to why teaching in the uk is being screwed up by the teaching unions. You want a scape goat, look to the National Curriculum and how every little detail of a teachers job is dictated from on high in this p.o.s instruction manual. Now please, illuminate me on this one, and no the Daily Mail or The Sun (uk tabloids) dont count as references.

(btw long long long time reader now its time to finally get an account and contribute)


RE: Unions should be banished - for good!
By seamonkey79 on 4/15/2009 1:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
Looks like she needs to teach you how to type stuff, because that sucked ass.


By ActionParsnip on 4/15/2009 4:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
My christening on daily tech. Warm and fuzzy feeling.


wow...
By nugundam93 on 4/15/2009 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
geez. the unions definitely don't want their members to have a job. o_O




RE: wow...
By cscpianoman on 4/15/2009 10:16:01 AM , Rating: 3
My dad works for a trucking company that had the union go on strike. The company saw the strike coming and prepared for it. It was about this time the economy really started turning sour so no one in the union could find alternative jobs. The mentality eventually became, "if we go down, we are taking you with us." Eventually, the strike ended, but only about 10% had a job coming back. In the meantime, the 90% and union leaders are still trying to "take down" the company.

Mob mentality is fun!


RE: wow...
By Motoman on 4/15/2009 10:27:12 AM , Rating: 5
There is a vast mentality of entitlement at play in the unions. Unfortunately, that entitlement has plenty of precedents in the concessions they were able to get from their employers when times were good.

The cold, hard facts are obvious...the labor provided by auto worker unions (and I'd venture to guess other industries, although I've not researched all other industries) is not worth anywhere near what the companies have to pay for it. A modern manufacturing-line job categorically is not worth a salary/benefits that will support a family of four. Not even close. Production line jobs require the skill and knowledge as can be gotten from essentially any high school graduate in virtually all cases...this isn't exactly skilled labor anymore. These are the kinds of jobs that should provide a reasonable wage to a single guy or gal living in an apartment - hopefully while they're attending college or votech or whatever.


RE: wow...
By kmmatney on 4/15/2009 1:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you live - California? This labor can easily provide for a family of four in Michigan, and many other states outside of California and New York. You can buy a decent house in Michigan for like $60K these days.


What REALLY needs to change
By HercDriver on 4/15/2009 10:50:29 AM , Rating: 5
are the laws regarding unions. The way the law is now, anytime the union feels like its members need a raise or more benefits (which seems to be very often), they go on strike. Then the company is FORCED to "negotiate" (hence give-in). The law requires the company to "act in good faith", or else they will be massively fined. In a purely capitalist system, the company could say "buh-bye" and fire them all. Granted they'd then have to find new employees willing to work for the wages they offered (not a big problem) and then spend the time and money to teach them their jobs (a bigger problem). All the while they'd be losing money with no products being made, but I wonder if the end result would be better. Besides, if this were the case, my guess is that the employees would be much less likely to strike in the first place. Capitalism is based on the peaceable, voluntary exchange of goods and services. In this case, the company says "We'll pay you XX dollars to do this job". If the worker thinks that is a fair deal, he will agree. If he ever thinks his skills merit more money, he can ask for a raise. The company then has to decide if his skills are worth it. If not, they can part ways, peacefully. The unions have destroyed this basic fundamental of capitalism, by convincing congress to favor them in drafting legislation forcing companies to deal with the union. Then there's the whole violent part of unions versus companies and so called "scabs" which also seems to be overlooked by government. There's a lot of literature out there regarding the extortion and violence of the unions. My opinion is that it's time for them to go. In any event, the law does need to change.
My $.02




RE: What REALLY needs to change
By nbourbaki on 4/16/2009 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
No. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, "common situs" picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass "right-to-work laws" that outlawed union shops. Furthermore, the executive branch of the Federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike "imperiled the national health or safety," a test that has been interpreted broadly by the courts. All union contracts have a term of duration. Striking outside that contract term is against the law and the unions, union members & union leadership could face significant financial penalites and criminal charges.

So what would you like to change?


Stupid and shortsighted
By nafhan on 4/15/2009 10:16:58 AM , Rating: 5
Not that I agree with the union, but this just seems dumb.
It seems like the obvious thing for the union to do would be back down now and wait until Fiat has significant resources invested in the former Chrysler. Then, and only then, they could start pushing for these benefits again once they have some leverage. Right now they've got nothing to work with.
I think it's been a while since the auto union has been looking out for the needs of anyone other than the people in charge of the union.




well
By meepstone on 4/15/2009 11:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
seems to me the UAW is just a bunch of pompous asshats. I really wish they all lose their jobs in my opinion.




By wannabemedontu on 4/15/2009 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is silly for any Chrysler employee to think they should earn even equal pay to any Japanese auto worker. How can you demand these wages/benefits when your product/service stinks in comparison to the competition? They would rather self destruct than live with less like the rest of the world. The American way I guess, cry and sue till you get what you want.




By Roy2001 on 4/15/2009 5:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
No talks, no negotiation, let UAW die, or big 3 die!




People should get the facts
By Beenthere on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: People should get the facts
By HercDriver on 4/15/2009 12:30:03 PM , Rating: 4
I seriously doubt the benefits are the same. I don't think German and Japanese employees get 80% of their pay FOR LIFE, and a significant % of their family's healthcare paid for. That is the reason why the US big 3 can't afford to pay the unions. My best friend is a GS-14 (high ranking civilian government employee) in the Detroit area. He bought a house in a nice neighborhood a few years ago. His neighbors are UAW members, who are just blue collar, assembly line people. I am not saying anything bad about these people, but there's no way that they should be able to afford these houses, with their skill-set. Many of them are just "lever pullers", and earn more than 6 figures. This is really great for them, with only a high-school education. It just goes to show how the unions drove up their salaries to absurdly high levels, which we the taxpayer must now sustain through their 80% pension benefits, which "cannot be allowed to fail". I'd sure like to retire in my 40s with $80K plus per year, but I doubt any of you are willing to pay for it. How many other high school graduates are paid this high of a salary for a low skill job? How many college graduates have you seen at McDonald's lately, pulling in $6 per hour (I have seen a few), because there are no jobs available. Yet the unions jobs are protected. Good for them, bad for the rest of us. Again, market forces should rule, not subsidised salaries. I hope they do fail, and the government does not pay their pension benefits.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki