Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rahm Emanual: "F--k the UAW"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:44 PM
Original message
Rahm Emanual: "F--k the UAW"
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 06:52 PM by amborin
About that “Fuck the UAW” Tax


In honor of Steve Rattner’s revelation that Rahm Emanuel wandered around during the auto bailout saying “fuck the UAW,” I’ve renamed the “Cadillac tax” the “Fuck the UAW” tax.
Which is appropriate timing given that the Kaiser Family Foundation is out with a study today they should have done during the health care debate, showing that employers have been shifting health care costs onto employees.

The premiums that employees pay for employer-sponsored family coverage rose an average of 13.7 percent this year, while the amount that employers contribute fell by 0.9 percent, the survey found.
For family coverage, workers are paying an average of $3,997, up $482 from last year, while employers are paying an average of $9,773, down $87, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
The best part of the WaPo coverage, though, are the quotes from KFF President Drew Altman playing dumb.

“Many employers looked into their recession survival kit and seem to have concluded that one way to make it through the recession and hang on to as many employees as possible was to pass on their health premium increases to their employees this year,” Kaiser Family Foundation President Drew Altman said by e-mail.
How much, if at all, the federal health-care overhaul enacted in March will restrain cost increases over the long run remains to be seen. While experts debate its likely impact, the legislation is “the only thing we have coming on line as a country to control costs other than what now seems like the primary default strategy in the private sector – shifting costs to people,” Altman said.

You see, the trend of employers shifting costs onto employees was readily apparent last year, when Jonathan Gruber and the Administration and health care reform boosters were using MagicMath to claim that not only would the “Fuck the UAW” tax save money, but that workers would end up with higher wages.
In fact, this behavior has been going on for decades, and it is precisely what the Fuck the UAW tax is designed to incent: boosters—some funded by the KFF–routinely argued that if employers passed more costs onto employees, they would become more sensitive to cost, and use less care (the entire debate sidestepped the question of whether incenting less care was useful, particularly for those with chronic conditions), thereby lowering health care costs overall. And this hocus pocus logic is–aside from laudable changes to Medicare delivery–the biggest cost “savings” in the health care reform bill. But the KFF poll appears to undercut the assumptions that went into the bill (notably, that employees would benefit from this scam).

snip

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/09/02/about-that-fuck-the-uaw-tax/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Steve Rattner?
Isn't that the guy who once said "I like to have sex with small children" on a hot mike on CNBC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. he's the guy Obama chose to be auto czar who was cozy with pension fund scammers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh, I must be thinking of somebody else.
Because Obama and crew saved the auto industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. LOL! Like GM using Bailout $$$ to build plants in Mexico & GM's new NON-union plants, in MIchigan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Tell you what.
Why don't you go find an actual UAW member. And tell them to their face that Obama shouldn't have bailed out GM. Buy them a few beers first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. you miss point; the bailout needed terms & conditions, like NOT busting the UAW & keeping jobs here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
divideandconquer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. GM is going to build subcompacts here, something no one else does
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 07:41 PM by divideandconquer
GM builds them now in Korea but the replacement will be built in the US. Ford and Chrysler will build their competitor cars in Mexico (the Chrysler Fiat Cinquencento will have a Michigan built 1.4L 4 cylinder), the Toyota Yaris, Scion whatever, Honda Fit, VW Polo, Mercedes Smart and whatever little car the Koreans build, are all built overseas. The Nissan/Renault deal assembles in Mexico.

Want to punish GM for bringing jobs back with Chevy Spark and Chevy Cruze or because they are a major player in China? They could bring these cars in from Asia but they're being built here instead. GM should be at least be treated civil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. punish GM? yes! for demanding its Indiana UAW workers take a 50% wage cut
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 07:44 PM by amborin
NO reason for GM to take US taxpayers' bailout money and use it to build plants in Mexico, for US markets!

this is Ok with you?

eta: it's a dangerous position to be grateful to a large, union-bashing corporation, such as GM, which has historically gone to great lengths to decimate the UAW; it sounds as if you're suggesting folks should be grateful they're deigning to build a subcompact in the US; but that's the *least* GM should do!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
divideandconquer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. GM is a far lesser evil than the Zaibatsu/Confederate alliance
Do you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. it won't be when it succeeds in decimating the UAW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
66. (sigh) unlike the US which permits unfettered importation of cars
our (ahem) trading partners DEMAND the vehicles be built in their home countries.


Blame our friend Bill Clinton for his trade deals, not GM or the UAW. The Cruze is being assembled in Lordstown Ohio for US consumption, it could EASILY be imported from where it is already successful, but it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #66
72. we
did get around to demanding they be built here, and what did we get? the non-union transplants in the non-union, right to work states

the uaw has historically always demanded to change us trade laws: re: cars (and everything), way before clinton

but you know how that goes

but think: we're supposed to be grateful that GM is assembling something in Ohio, for US consumption?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
92. "What's good for GM is good for the Country"
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #92
116. seems
to be the motto for many on this site

corporate profits above all else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #116
156. Seems to me then...
either they're on the wrong site or I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
95. So you support the corporations over the workers? Are you a Democrat? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #95
117. that's sure what it sounds like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
98. GM wasnt hurting. They had billions in profits around the world. They pulled off one big scam and
Pres Obama bought it. No wait, the American taxpayers bought it. GM sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
119. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #98
175. exactly. it's all about union busting and maximizing corporate profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChimpersMcSmirkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
115. First round's on me!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
146. Only if you have the guts to come with me.
Something tells me you'd flee, or suck up, at the first sign of trouble? Why do I think this is a date that you'd never keep?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. GM isn't building plants in Mexico
They are investing money in current plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Wrong! GM most certainly IS building new plants in Mexico,
and even if they were merely investing more money in current plants, that, too, is unacceptable

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. post the link proving it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
78. no links, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
96. Wrong. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
140. LOL
Prove it wrong. The other poster apparently can't....and neither can you or you would have posted a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
169. I dont see your point. They are moving jobs to Mexico and investing billions.
"GM has announced investments of $3.67 billion in Mexico since November 2007, including a new assembly plant in San Luis Potosí. The company has closed five U.S.-based assembly plants and put three more on standby since June 2005, according to Tom Wilkinson, a GM spokesman. "

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_27/b4185010570308.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #169
171. I was just correcting facts
This is not the first time I've this false "building new plants" nonsense posted on DU.

Yes, it sucks they are investing in Mexico but not here. Wanting the facts to be correct doesn't mean I'm happy about GM investing in Mexican plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. It's cool. Thanks for the explanation. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Now THAT was a quick turnaround!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
173. Looks like an attempt to hijack the thread. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. I see you've been spoonfed the latest attack line/poutrage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
10.  I'm familiar with US labor history & union-bashing and union-busting are unacceptable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Union-bashing has become a sport here on DU.
Today the UAW, yesterday the eeeeeevil teachers unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. alas, that seems to be the case
it's unfathomable to me, but sadly true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. Poutrage is such a special fucking term isn't it?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
77. Poutrage?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
181. Is this a hit and run post or a drive-by fruiting? nm
Edited on Sat Sep-04-10 06:12 PM by rhett o rick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Ah, geez. Here we go again. Wasn't It FDL that twisted the "f**king morons"
story?

If recall correctly, the WSJ ran that story first, stating that Rahm had criticized the liberal groups' ideas, not the group itself. Then a couple of online news sites ran roughly the same story. Two or three days later, however, FDL rewrites the original story, stating that Rahm called liberals "f**king morons."

Predictably, we had to endure 4 or 5 long days of the "off with his head!" sentiment that was based entirely on a misstatement of facts.

If we're going to start this rubbish again, let's please validate the story first.

Thanks for listening.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. the article IS validated; FDL is an outstanding source of truth; so is Big ED, who reported it today
denial of facts never is a good strategy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. There you go again!
:cry: lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
50. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
58. "FDL is an outstanding source of truth".... unintentionally, the funniest quote on DU in months

The next time Jane Hamsher tells the truth will be the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. some of the best investigative/citizen reporting in the US,

as clear to anyone capable of critical thinking.

thank god for FDL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
70. Sorry, you're wrong on that.
If you want to make such accusations then back them up with evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
103. I agree-FDL is outstanding it's DLC types that try to disparage FDL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #103
114. exactly
DLC types can't abide reading the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
61. Actually it was "fucking retarded"
If we're going to start this rubbish again, let's please get the insult correct.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #61
80. Lol!
Thanks for the correction. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
75. I thought he called them 'retarded'
Or was that another incident involving Rahm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. You're correct
It was "retarded" which would make more sense given the context. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. Time to go home, Rahm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. his dismissal is long overdue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
176. he's probably heading straight to Goldmine Sucks after this gig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNLib Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. Right now membership is down with insurance companies because of layoffs
However insurance companies are still making a tidy profit and making up the lost because utilization is down. This means members are not going to the doctor as much, most likely because they can't afford the co-pays and deductibles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. the co-pays and deductibles will become even more prohibitively expensive....
it's a shame that unions' hard-wrought gains were sacrificed; union members gave up a lot to get these benefits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. Fuck the Unions!

What are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. that perfectly sums up their stance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Not just the Unions.
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 09:51 PM by bvar22
Thats how the Party Leadership feels about anyone to The Left of Reagan.

GLBT?...Fuck 'Em

Anti-WAR?...Fuck 'Em

Justice for War Criminals?...Fuck 'Em

Single Payer?...Fuck "Em

REAL regulation of Wall Street (Glass-Steagall)?....Fuck 'Em

Teachers?...Fuck 'Em

Hands Off Social Security?....Fuck 'Em

Renegotiate NAFTA (Free Trade)?....Fuck 'Em

Restore Constitutional Protections?...Fuck 'Em

FDR Democrats?....Fuck Em....


Because what are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Not only will they vote for us again,
but they will send us all their spare dollars
so we can Fuck 'Em Again!!!
Hahahahahahahaha!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. exactly!
but party leadership may just be in for a big surprise


what's that quote again that someone has as their signature?

something along the lines of, "if Dem voters don't see much diff between Dems and Rethugs, they'll vote for the Rethugs"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I think you mean this one:
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."---Harry Truman


It has been shortened to this:
"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. that's it, thanks!
soon to be put to the test again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SusanaMontana41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
55. Although Obama's presidency has been less than what I'd hoped it would be,
I'll vote a straight Dem ticket in November.

The Dems may be disappointing, but the Teabaggers are dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
81. Awesome post-wish I could rec it! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
45. OMG, could I get a tongue in ny ear!!!!???
On second thought - don't want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
28. This post makes some incorrect assumptions. ALL healthcare costs are ALWAYS shifted onto employees.
When an employer hires someone, he budgets their total compensation. Some goes to wages, some goes to health insurance, etc. If health insurance costs go up for the employer, then the employee is going to get less of a raise. This is basic economics.

The only difference now is that because inflation is at approximately 0, the raise people normally would get is too low for enough to be taken out to cover health insurance premium increases. So they essentially give people negative raises to reflect that (i.e. make people pay for more healthcare). But this is really no different than how it ever worked.

I'm not sure how this study being released during the healthcare debate would have helped anyone. The people working on the bill already KNEW the basic fact of economics that health insurance increases come out of wages.

None of this has anything to do with the Cadilac tax, because that tax is on the TOTAL premiums (employer contribution + employee contribution). The relative weight of each contribution is irrelevant to the tax. The tax is on families that pay 27,500/year or more for premiums (employee + employer contributions).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. wrong! it has everything to do with it! employees are being required to pay a larger % now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. The % they are paying isn't relevant, because the % employer pays just comes out of their wages.
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 09:54 PM by BzaDem
In other words, the employee pays 100% of their healthcare costs, whether they see it or not. Whether the employer spends a dollar and gives you a dollar less in wages, or the employer gives you a dollar more in wages and then you spend it on healthcare, it is still a dollar that you no longer have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. I've heard Limbaugh and Boortz say exactly the same thing..
So you're in good company.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. So? Limbaugh and Boortz also admit the Earth is round. Does that mean the Earth is flat? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I've never heard either one mention the shape of the Earth..
And yet I've heard both of them say exactly what you're saying many times. I used to work at a place where the boss had them both on the radio every day, I've heard far more of their bullshit than was good for my soul.

Like I said, you're in good company.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. It is easy to find Rush referring to the fact that the earth is round.
Quick Google search:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031710/content/01125109.guest.html

So by your logic, the Earth must be flat. Or, you agree with Rush that the Earth is round, and are therefore "in good company."

When you are in a hole, you should probably stop digging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are spouting right wing talking points..
I was trying to be nice about it but right wing economic babbling is hardly on the same level of scientific accuracy as our planet being an oblate spheroid, a fact that has been verified and measured to millimeters.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. +110
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 11:31 PM by amborin
incredible to witness the denigration of unions and other right wing talking points on a "democratic" message board

but then look what we've got as chief of staff....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #43
56. Many here pretend the entire science of economics is right-wing
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 12:13 AM by BzaDem
But that says more about people like you who deny basic economic reality than it does about reality.

Do you really think employers are just good kind-hearted organizations that give you healthcare out of the kindness of their hearts? That when premiums have gone up over the last several decades, they just took the hit out of their kind hearts rather than take away from wages and raises? That if your total compensation rises above what your labor is worth to them, they will just say "meh, whatever," rather than reduce your raise?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's exactly what you are arguing. As I said, when you are in a hole, it is usually a good idea to stop digging. Not jump in head first. You are sounding exactly like someone who claims the earth is flat. I was trying to be nice about it, but it apparently didn't convey the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #56
67. The true test of a scientific theory is in its ability to provide accurate predictions..
Do you think Limbaugh's understanding of economics allows him to accurately predict future economic activity?

Who has accurately predicted the economic activity of the last few years? Certainly not the right wing economists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
84. Unless you think the Earth is flat, this has nothing to do with Limbaugh. Krugman and Delong
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 03:51 PM by BzaDem
also know that it is obvious that healthcare costs come out of wages. It is understood by all progressive economists, and is one of the arguments single payer advocates use. You are really stepping in it trying to make this about Limbaugh and avoiding the substance of my last post (and the fact that this is obvious to all progressive economists). You should stop making such a fool of yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #84
177. "You should stop making such a fool of yourself." - pure projection on your part.

and a personal attack, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. Thank you for your well-reasoned, fully documented counterargument.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
138. Hello!
Just your friendly LW business banker for a major US bank checking in to tell you you're wrong.

While the total cost of employment is generally calculated by employers (and one does not hire if one deems the cost of a new employee to be greater than the loss of productivity to stretch current workforce thinner.) there is zero substantive connection that rising cost of benefits is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages. In fact, that'd be a fundamentally stupid way to run one's business. One would not remain in business long-term under such a tactic and the net result would be loss of desirability of your position-offering (any employer wants to be able to keep or obtain the prospective employees of their choice.) and/or a counter-demand for a higher wage to offset higher premiums once in a better economy. In other words, anybody doing this today will have to pay the piper for it tomorrow. (or eventually. It's only a winning tactic in the long-term if you believe the economy is going to continue to spiral down into oblivion permanently.) They will have high-turnover, they will lose out on their preferred applicants and they will have to increase compensation to keep the employees they have now who gave concessions, accepted a increased share of the cost of their benefits or accepted a sub-value offer to have a job.

Wages are determined by what the labor-market will bear. Benefits costs are determined by cost on the supplier-market. Two different markets, mind you. The goal for employers in both cases is to attempt to maximize productivity and minimize expense. There is no linkage between the two however, for the simple reason that what I or any employee will work for does not decrease because the cost of benefits to the employer increases...pay-demands tend to be personally-fixed and independent of secondary costs not passed on to the employee and only move in one direction in response to secondary costs subsequently passed on to employees: it causes pay demands to rise. When those costs recede, pay-demands do not.

The only reason the inverse even appears to be true is basically because we've been in the same skilled-job-less "recovery" since the tech-bubble burst nearly a decade ago. Nobody's had to pay the piper for almost ten years...so some employers are starting to think they never will. Those companies will not survive the recovery (when it comes) by continuing in the current mode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #138
149. "for the simple reason that what I or any employee will work for does not decrease because the cost
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 08:39 PM by BzaDem
of benefits to the employer increases"

That is the fundamental assumption that underlies your entire argument, and it is complete crap. When looking for a job, employees take lower wages when provided with better (i.e. more expensive) benefits all the time. This is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be stated.

But you aren't just disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with progressive economists (as opposed to "LW business bankers for a major US bank").

Paul Krugman:

"Second, there’s the argument that any reductions in premiums won’t be passed through into wages. I just don’t buy that. It’s true that the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people. But I’m enough of a card-carrying economist to believe that there’s a real tradeoff between benefits and wages.

Maybe it will help the plausibility of this case to notice that we’re not actually asking whether a fall in premiums would be passed on to workers. Even with the excise tax, premiums are likely to rise over time — just more slowly than they would have otherwise. So what we’re really asking is whether slowing the growth of premiums would reduce the squeeze rising health costs would otherwise have placed on wages. Surely the answer is yes."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/the-health-insurance-excise-tax/

Brad Delong:

"The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 has forced employers to choose between cutting wages, cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/commentary/cutler-healthcare-obama-oped-oct08

Ezra Klein (not an economist, but he is interviewing one):

"Earlier in the day, I'd been talking to MIT economist Jon Gruber about this issue. "There are a few things economists believe in our souls so strongly that we have a hard time actually explaining them," he said. "One is that free trade is good and another is that health-care costs come out of wages." To put it another way: Economists are pretty united on this point. A firm's compensation for its workers is pretty static, and if relatively more goes to health-care costs, relatively less will go to wages, and vice-versa. But this isn't just a matter of theory. The following graph charts the percent growth in the median household income versus the percent growth in health-care costs since 1990."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_lower_health-care_costs_m.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-05-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #149
188. that's bullshit. worker cost in the average car is about 10% -- & that was before the
gm bankruptcy.

it's just an excuse to cut into the only profit source -- which is workers' compensation.

they can't make profit off other capitalists without touching off actual competition -- so they all take it out of the workers.

collusive oligopoly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
86. The point here is that you agree with
some really bad people about a point of policy affecting human beings. Your attempt to run away from that with your round-earth crap analogy is understandable. You should be ashamed. Any decent Democrat who so closely mirrored the opinions of these two would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. The problem with your argument is that Krugman, Delong, and every other progressive economist
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 04:03 PM by BzaDem
also agree. I guess using your logic, they should all be thrown under the bus as well. In fact, I don't know a SINGLE economist that doesn't agree that healthcare costs come out of wages.

While I doubt I will get an apology from you, it is YOU who should be ashamed. YOU are the one throwing around accusations without spending one minute of time researching progressive economists' views on healthcare costs coming out of wages. The round earth analogy is apt, because this is a fact that is JUST THAT OBVIOUS and accepted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
105. Round Earth. Wages vs Insurance
Nice dodge.

So you are saying that all of the money that an employer spends on insurance would automatically be put into wages if not applied to insurance? Naive. You have a gift for divining the motives and drives of corporate employers, I suppose. That must be why you can say that they would not benefit financially from cutting their rates of contribution to insurance.

The point isn't round earth, but that was a nice dodge. Are you saying that cutting all insurance employer costs would benefit workers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #105
143. YOU are the one divining benevolent motives of corporate employers. Not me (or Krugman, Delong, etc)
I have simply stated the obvious fact that insurance costs come out of wages.

Let's say your labor is worth 60 thousand per year to that company. That means that your total compensation would likely be at most 60 thousand (for it would not be worth it for the employer if you were compensated more). Your compensation could be less than 60 thousand (for example, if there is an excess of workers in that area, due to supply and demand), but it would not likely be more than 60 thousand.

That 60 thousand includes healthcare AND wages (and all other benefits). It does not matter what percentage of that money is for benefits and what percentage is for wages (except for taxes). A dollar an employer pays is a dollar an employer pays.

So how much an employee pays for healthcare out of their wages is really besides the point, because the EMPLOYER portion comes out of their potential wages as well. If I make 60k wages and pay 5k for healthcare, that is basically the same as making 55k in wages and having the employer pay 5k for healthcare.

All of this is basic introductory economics 101, and few if any with a phd in economics disagrees with it (certainly not progressive economists).


"Are you saying that cutting all insurance employer costs would benefit workers?"

I NEVER said that cutting all insurance employer costs would BENEFIT workers. I simply said that it would (in general) not HURT workers, because ALL of their healthcare costs are either implictly or explicitly paid by workers (directly from wages or indirectly from potential wages). Changing the proportion just changes the PROCEDURE for taking more money from your wages -- not the AMOUNT.

An exception to this would be if your total compensation (wages + benefits) is currently more than what your labor is worth to the employer (or what supply and demand would determine to be your salary). This can happen because of sticky wages (where the worth of your labor goes down in the current economy, but your wages do not). In this case, employers might use a variety of mechanisms to indirectly cut your total compensation. One of which might be healthcare benefit cuts without corresponding wage hikes, and another might be no raise (or a minimal raise) for a few years. But this has nothing to do with healthcare per se. It just reflects the fact that the employer is giving you more in total compensation than your labor is worth to them (and their response to that).

But if you are currently making the market rate for your profession (in terms of total compensation), a lower employer contribution for healthcare costs will generally result in higher wages than you would make otherwise. Again, this is not a very controversial or disputed statement -- progressive economists make it all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #89
120. you have it confused
and you seem to be trying to obfuscate by going off on tangents

the bottom line is that HCR amounts to increased health care costs for many many people who already had health care

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #120
144. You are wrong, but that is besides the point, because that is not the point of this thread. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #89
139. Here's where you're wrong.
You're accepting a universally held position among RW economists which is actually a contentious point not universally held among LW economists, actually the subject of great debate...as a universally-held position across the board.

It's not. You're entitled to take a side on that debate (and clearly you have) but not to present that side as the only camp of thought. (because that'd be intellectually dishonest.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. You are the one being intellectually dishonest.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 08:27 PM by BzaDem
Paul Krugman:

"Second, there’s the argument that any reductions in premiums won’t be passed through into wages. I just don’t buy that. It’s true that the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people. But I’m enough of a card-carrying economist to believe that there’s a real tradeoff between benefits and wages.

Maybe it will help the plausibility of this case to notice that we’re not actually asking whether a fall in premiums would be passed on to workers. Even with the excise tax, premiums are likely to rise over time — just more slowly than they would have otherwise. So what we’re really asking is whether slowing the growth of premiums would reduce the squeeze rising health costs would otherwise have placed on wages. Surely the answer is yes."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/the-health-insurance-excise-tax/

Brad Delong:

"The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 has forced employers to choose between cutting wages, cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/commentary/cutler-healthcare-obama-oped-oct08

Ezra Klein (not an economist, but he is interviewing one):

"Earlier in the day, I'd been talking to MIT economist Jon Gruber about this issue. "There are a few things economists believe in our souls so strongly that we have a hard time actually explaining them," he said. "One is that free trade is good and another is that health-care costs come out of wages." To put it another way: Economists are pretty united on this point. A firm's compensation for its workers is pretty static, and if relatively more goes to health-care costs, relatively less will go to wages, and vice-versa. But this isn't just a matter of theory. The following graph charts the percent growth in the median household income versus the percent growth in health-care costs since 1990."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/will_lower_health-care_costs_m.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #28
59. Lets see what "Candidate" Obama said about the "Cadillac Tax":
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
74. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
88. Obama was criticizing McCain's plan of taxing ALL health plans
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 03:56 PM by BzaDem
and giving a small credit in return. The Cadillac tax that passed only taxes plans above 27,500 per year per family. Nice try though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. Got It!
McCain Cadillac Tax = BAD.

Obama Cadillac Tax = GOOD!

IOKWODI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Excellent. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #88
121. clearly
you did not study up on HCR


the "cadillac" tax was shown to be an unfair burden on those who really only have "chevy" plans

you are apologizing for a really dastardly deed

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #121
157. I studied up on it a hell of a lot more than you did. It affects plans that are 27,500/year/family.
If you want to call that a "chevy" plan, knock yourself out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnpaul Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
90. the sad thing is that Rattner also claimed that Obama said
"Why can't they build Corollas" refering to GM



There is your GM Corolla - a massive failure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. "fuck the UAW,"
....I'm not sure what you call these things in the White House that are supposedly governing us, but they're sure not Democrats....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Assoles is what I call them,
YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. no, they're certainly not


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
47. More crap shoveled from the sewage plant that is FDL.
Doesn't Jane Hamsher have someone else she could annoy? Friends? Family? Poisonous reptiles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. truth stings, doesn't it?
you just committed a fallacy

attack the messenger when you don't like the message

in any case, FDL speaks the truth, and the many other sources have published the same article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. You provided no context for Emanuel's quote.
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 11:31 PM by Arkana
You're the one not being genuine, pal. Democratic interest groups probably get quite irritating--especially to the guys in charge.

Rahm Emanuel is famous for being profane. You knew that before he was made CoS--so your "surprise" and your "outrage" are quickly becoming predictable and boring.

And I attack your precious Jane Hamsher because she deserves it for hopping into bed with Grover fucking Norquist. She's got an agenda, just like the rest of her GOP pals--and that's to print the most incendiary crap on the Obama administration she can find in order to make headlines and money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. shifting the goal posts, another fallacy
but in any case, the context in this case only makes R's remark all the worse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #54
94. Sources are important.
FDL doesn't constitute a credible source. It is extremely biased and deals in opinion rather than fact. It's just a collection of bloggers who routinely churn out misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #94
122. truth stings
FDL reports the truth but DLC types hate it for this reason

fact is, this story was reported by various sources, including Big Ed

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #51
158. don't diss hamster, you're gonna hurt their feelings....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #48
69. Oh..
is that what "ignored" did? What a surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #69
136. yes
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #47
62. .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9064926&mesg_id=9067013

Your smears directed at FDL and Jane Hamsher are disgusting and absurd, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #62
76. Yawn. Wake me when you find someone who ISN'T in bed with Grover Norquist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #76
148. Wake me when you find someone that doesn't think Alan Simpson is a wise choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #47
147. Is that your rebuttal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
57. A) No context.... B) Obama administration SAVED the UAW.

You folks are always saying "actions count, not words!"


Well... the ACTIONS that were taken saved the UAW.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #57
71. His intent was to save the stockholders profits
UAW workers have been forced to make many concessions. Team Obama has no love for unions, and not bailing out an automaker would not have destroyed the UAW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. exactly
and Obama has already failed the ultimate test re: unions

while he campaigned on EFCA, he did zip to pass it when the window was open, and now it's gutted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
63. KR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
64. And that little douche bag wants our support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
65. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
68. That's Becoming a Familiar Refrain from this Admin
Color me not surprised
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #68
124. it seems to be getting more crass and in your face
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justabob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #124
133. stunningly so
Things have been completely surreal for a while now, but instead of lessening with the new admin, it has entered a whole new dimension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #133
151. exactly
it's blatant and also seems to be escalating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
82. Surely there must be a new stadium being built somewhere in this country.
One where Rahm could become a "permanent resident"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #82
125. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
83. Its an epidemic...
The Preferred Group just gave their spiel at a union conference, they said by saving employers money the employees would benefit! Despite the fact that their healthcare decreases...the spin made me sick! K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
126. Orwellian doublespeak straight out of Laffer and Reaganomiics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #126
159. yep trickle down health care ...
the guy even said something about online doctor's visits...sadly I had to leave early and said something about Medicare for all being the real solution. As I was leaving, I heard the guy spin what I'd said in his favor...lucky I didn't have something to throw in my hand... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
85. Really? He "wandered around saying 'fuck the UAW'? Was he eating babies at the same time?
Oh, don't let me get in the way of today's Rahm-as-boogeyman fun, but the source of that quote- and the allegation that Rahm maybe may have said it once-- is, um, a little suspect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/steven-rattners-overhaul-_n_703070.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Suspect as in "nyah nyah IIII caaannnt heeaar yooouuuu"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Did you look at the link?
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 04:50 PM by Warren DeMontague
Can you honestly claim that is some sort of evidence that Rahm "wandered around saying Fuck the UAW"?

I'm not asking if you hate Rahm Emmanuel, I'm not asking if you think he's an asshole, etc. I'm saying, if people are going to post OPs about how he's "wandering around saying Fuck the UAW", they should be able to back it up. It's not there, and while it may be fun- in a Jr. High School sense- to just make shit up that sounds good, to smear people you don't like-- it's really not useful in terms of adult political interchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #91
99. Some people don't know anything about evaluating sources.
And they don't want to, if the juicy gossip seems to support their preconceived ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #99
104. The shit about Rahm just gets fucking goofy. I'm not wrung out about the guy one way or the other
but to pretend that he's somehow the DLC antichrist... I mean, people need to get a fucking grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. People believe what they read and hear .
The U.S. cable media are becoming increasingly tabloid. The radio talk-show circuit started that decades ago. They manufacture controversy to make money.

It's much worse today because people don't know how to evaluate information. Where did the information come from? Does one have to click through four links to find the original source? Is the original source credible? Have interim sources presented the original information honestly, or or they, looking for an angle and distorting the information?

One of these days I'll address this. It's one of the things I'm required to teach, for a very good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #99
107. And some people never evaluate a source.
The evaluate how it agrees with their predetermined point of view. If a post in any way contradicts the view that Obama has never and will never be in error, it is automatically suspect, if not an outright lie.

Obama screwed up in many of his appointments. He continues to do so when he takes the advice and counsel of people who are bent on turning the Democratic party into something slightly right of richard nixon's party. Some refuse to believe that. There is no limit to what an Obama administration official and do, no boundary too far right.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party. It's not your father's Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. So start a thread about that.
Don't stick some quote in some dude's mouth that he probably never said, just because it sounds like something your cartoon version of him might say, inside your own head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #109
164. Rahm Emanual
is a sold out corporate piece of sh*t, who gives a fuc* what he said, it's what he does that counts. Billions for the corporations/bankers, jack sh*t for the workers.

and the fact that he is Obama's right hand man speaks volumes.

Like Obama somehow made a mistake appointing these sh*tbags, Rahm Gietner Bernanke, Summers. Bullsh*t, Obama knows exactly who these guys are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. Oh, for fuck's sake. Just type out the entire swear word.
And it's "Emanuel", BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. And who said Obama has never and will never be in error? Not me.
Let's take Gay Marriage, for instance. He's WRONG. Capital-W Wrong.

But this fantasy that Rahm Emannuel is the spooky maestro behind the scenes pulling strings going "MUAHAHAHAHAAAHAA. Fie on you, tiny union members MUAHAHHAAHAHA!". Like I said, it's just goofy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #111
160. Speaking of putting words in mouths.
Who said rahmbo was a spooky maestro? Find the quote I made. Or did you just make that up. Where did I say he said fie on you tiny union members. Or did you just make that up?

Now the point is, given rahmbo's actions, words, and behavior, you find it difficult to believe he said Fuck the UAW? Sounds just like him to me. The man is a control freak who revels in the power that he has. I don't think he controls Obama. I think he acts just like Obama wants him to. That is why it would not surprise me to hear it said that he might mutter "Fuck the gays" if a group representing GLBT issues were to suggest he was wrong.

Please note that in all the WH defense of rahm and attack on the author, they haven't said he didn't say that. Could it be that such a denial might meet with evidence to the contrary? Could it be that many people heard this and that the WH doesn't dare say it didn't happen.

Among Obama's errors in judgement is his appointment and continued support of people like emmanuel and geithner and duncan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #160
167. Well, there's this:
A senior White House official similarly cast doubt on the account.

"Throughout the entire process that saved the auto industry, Rahm tirelessly defended and advocated on behalf of the autoworkers," the official said, declining to be identified because the official had not read a final version of the book. "Any suggestion to the contrary is simply ridiculous."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090205612_pf.html


And then, there's this:

UAW President Bob King told the Post that the anecdote was "baloney."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015555-503544.html

Not to mention, this:

Rattner's departure from the administration was hastened after federal investigators began probing whether he had paid a middleman to win a lucrative contract from New York's pension system while he worked on Wall Street.


So who are you going to believe? The guy under potential indictment for sleazy dealings, or the president of the Union you want to defend? :shrug:

Speaking of sleazy dealings, it's a good thing that a quote like that -you know, pointedly aimed at alienating a group that comprises a core of the Party's base- isn't the sort of thing a political operative might pay someone to say.. particularly someone facing a lot of, oh, legal fees...


....right?


But, whatever. You know what you know, particularly when it comes to ---cue spooky, ominous DLC music--- "Rahmbo" :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #167
184. Not exactly an apology, but I'll take it.
Since you didn't address your issues of putting words in my mouth - you know the thing you were accusing me of - I'll take your dodge as an admission.

Now for your post. You get to believe who you want. Why hasn't the WH denied it? Why haven't they just said "He never said that"?

As far as who is most believable. One guy is out. One guy is in office and has to make nice with Rahm to keep the aid coming. It's a toss up to me. But Rahm is still a dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. No. Not even close.
Edited on Sat Sep-04-10 11:10 PM by Warren DeMontague
To Wit- Goofy Fucking DU 'debating' tactic #4,083: Ignore the plainly laid out points the other person says, then pretend somehow that they're saying something else (like, "apologizing".. :eyes:) or, go, "thank you for proving my point about the frimhatz and the fitzwardle" - when the person has done and said nothing of the sort.

The person putting words in someone's mouth is the OP. That was my whole point. The faux pretend offense you're taking has to do with me summarizing your argument, which I will happily do again: "Rahm is a dick, therefore any nasty shit ascribed to him must be true, and even if it isn't, it doesn't matter, because he's still a dick".

That wasn't 'putting words in your mouth', that was a summary of the POV expressed throughout this thread, by a whole bunch of folks. And a spot-on one, too, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-05-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #185
186. Please learn to follow threads.
If you wanted to reply to the OP then, you should have clicked on the reply button at the OP. You clicked on the reply button for my post. That is why I thought you were replying to me. See. If you learn a little bit about how a forum works before you start getting all huffy and defensive, you won't come off looking like such a tool. But hey. Everyone makes mistakes.

And again. You seem to read only portions of posts. You still haven't replied to my questions.

But I can see by your short temper and self-aggrandizement that I can't expect your apology to actually look like one. But admitting that you posted incorrectly is a step in the right direction. Good luck with whatever issues are making you so tense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-05-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. And, like clockwork, the next one: "You're doing it wrong". No, I'm not.
Edited on Sun Sep-05-10 03:43 PM by Warren DeMontague
Who's getting all huffy and defensive? Me? Or the person tossing out dumb-ass insults?

Speaking of 'following threads' what "questions" haven't I replied to?

You mean the ones where you blithely tried to change the subject of the thread from the incendiary quote attributed to the Administration Official, from the guy of questionable credibility, to yourself? Oh. Gee, Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #107
142. That's your opinion,and you have a right to it,
but that's not exactly what I was talking about.

There are sources that might match my ideology, yet I might not trust them; I might get tired of them if I see that they care more about opinions, money, and ratings than facts. MSNBC is such a case. That cable network showcased the run-up to the Iraq War, and it wasn't until it was safe that MSNBC determined that opposition to the war was profitable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
100. The elitist liberal-hating corporatist Rahm Emanuel should be thrown out on his egoistical ass!
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 05:26 PM by GreenTea
I'm so sick of these corporate DLC assholes like Emanuel who caters to the corporations, money and the republicans, at the same time he despises liberals progressives as being in the way.

This is truly what elitism is all about, and the smug, arrogant, egotistical Rahm Emanuel typifies it to the extreme - Emanuel is nothing more than a lying spewing pile of dog shit!

Am I being too kind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #100
127. +100
before, Rahm worked for a wall street takeover firm, loading up industrial companies with debt, forcing them into bankruptcy, workers fired, pension funds raided, but shareholders making big profits

that's who Rahm's rooting for: corporations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eyerish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
101. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #101
128. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
102. We should have to pay to work here, that's what any "good American" would do.
I'm surprised the company I work for doesn't make me buy tickets just to walk in the building, like a cover charge at a bar.

They bitched and moaned about all of the restroom breaks people were taking.
While working a 12-hour shift!!
I couldn't believe it.

How many people do you know can have lunch after 6 hours and still not have to use the facilities at least once during a 12-hour shift?
And then they wonder why they have to hire so many new people year after year after year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #102
112. My current company has a free beer keg.
They stock it with boutique microbrews... but we're not supposed to drink before 5, except for on wednesdays, when we can tap the keg at 3:45. The drink fridge is restocked as needed, all the soda/tea/red bull/vitamin water you want. We try to have differently themed parties once a month, sometimes we have tricycle races, other times we do a "pub crawl" from department to department, or celebrate Mardi Gras, or go to a concert.

Oh, and our last quarter's company theme was "play more", and they set up dartboards, exercise machines, etc., to encourage people to stop spending so much time at their desks working. They didn't want employees to burn out, or get stuck in a routine.

The wages aren't great, but that's because we decided as a company to spend more money on the quality of life of the staff, and the community.

Good companies still exist in the US, don't accept shitty working conditions as the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #112
137. the
"wages aren't great"

a lot of companies are back to their old tricks: paternalistic behavior to try to make workers think
it's a good corporation and they really care about the workers

yours may not be like this; but all that feeel good stuff you mentioned.....

it's good to have that *after* one has a good wages and benefits package, not instead of....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #137
165. They're *very* open about most numbers, down to the dollar.
It's also not a worker/bosses paradigm, they did hire one guy who thought his job was telling other people what to do... he only lasted about 6 months, because nobody ever saw him actually working. (His first action was to hire me to do his work, so they kept me and got rid of him.)

Part of what makes the culture different, I think, is that a lot of the staff are corporate refugees: They know all the lies and games, and they're sick of it, so they moved to a smallish town in the middle of nowhere to change up their life, and actually *do* what other companies claim.

Other highlights:
Timecards and working hours are on an honor system
Paid Time Off for bereavement, sports injuries, and local volunteer work
Gym benefits
Restaurant benefits
Flex time
Doggies welcome (and encouraged) at work
Corporate giving fund (currently at $20K/year) disbursed based on the team (drawn out of a hat)
Sponsored softball team
Sponsored soccer team
Extreme job mobility (the company's first receptionist is now a VP, every receptionist since gets bumped up and trained up fast)
No cubicles, and (almost) no offices (HR/Legal lockup areas are the two exceptions)
Skateboarding and bicycling in the offices
Green awards for eco-friendly commuting (we have regular competitions)
Weekly employee awards in the form of cash, lunches, recreating passes, etc.
Free luxury hotel rooms for out-of-town workers who visit

...it goes on and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #165
178. "No cubicles, and (almost) no offices" - interesting. Just curious, then where the heck do people

work?? In some big open space, or what?? I just can't picture it, hence my curiosity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #178
183. Yup, one big open space.
There are meeting rooms for when a team needs to get together, but otherwise, it's an open space, with desks loosely grouped by department, and open desks for when people need to group with another team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-05-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #183
189. i dunno, I'd rather have my own cubicle than work in "one big open space".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #102
113. Oh, and I believe that might be a violation of labor law, depending on where you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #102
129. +100
it sounds extreme but it's heading that way; workers should be grateful to have a job, any job, for any pittance, and any lousy working conditions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
106. It's hard for me to have sympathy for people paying less than 4K when we now pay more than 12K.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-10 05:58 PM by Diane R
Just my husband and I. Perfect health. New premiums over $1,000 a month, crappy insurance with high deductible.

Yes. In a perfect world, auto workers would have their health insurance covered. But pardon me if I am worried more about my own family right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #106
130. that's a scary thing
we're seeing this more and more

one category of worker feels no empathy for another that has it slightly better than they do

you expressed it perfectly

yet, what you may not realize is, when standards erode for any category of worker, they erode for *all* workers

unionized auto workers had to fight bloody battles to get those benefits; many were killed and beaten over the decades; it was a long and
difficult struggle; auto workers also gave up wages in exchange for obtaining those health benefits over the years

the real target of everyone's anger should be the profit-mongering corporations, not other categories of workers



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
108. Just in time for LABOR DAY
Fucking jerk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #108
131. he is a fucking jerk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
118. What that douchebag Rahm doesn't realize . ..
is that if workers don't have a vehicle to resolve grievances peacefully, they will air their grievances violently.

But of course he thinks that working people will just roll over and willingly give up their rights, he's a rich elitist bastard that hates working people. He thinks we're all a bunch of fucking peasants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #118
132. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #118
134. If this administration has it's way we all WILL be peasants -
because they are continuing to rob us blind to continue their war-mongering, just like the last one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #134
152. yes,
war-mongering and putting corporate profits over ordinary Americans' livelihoods
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
123. Rahm's a made man. Like he gives a flip about the UAW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #123
135. you're right, he doesn't
but he has a lot of power and workers have to make sure their rights aren't further trampled
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
141. The contempt this administration has for the working person is boundless
They really don't give a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #141
150. It works out well, because I no longer give a shit about them either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #150
154. people are disgusted
and realizing how badly they've been conned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. I can only speak for those I know, and yes, they are disgusted.
I got one friend to vote in '06 for the first time ever in his life on the hopes that wars would end, and the Dems immediately voted for another war extension. My friend asked me, "Why did I listen to you?"

Always a good question. I no longer tell people to vote for Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #141
153. exactly
this administration champions the interests of Wall St and big corporations; it treats ordinary working Americans with contempt and disdain, starting with TARP, which candidate Obama worked hard to get passed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #153
168. There is effectively no real government anymore. It has been totally hijacked.
We're not talking corruption, we're talking possession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
161. Criticize Rahm for what he deserves but I wouldn't worry about him
and the "F" word. I had the feeling all along & it was confirmed on one of MSNBC's evening shows the other day, that Raham uses the "F" word for everything & anyone! Jonathan A;teer, the write of "Obama, Year One" was the guest who said it, and I believe him.Alter said Rahm says that word about everyone including his amily, his friends, is State...it's just part of his evry sentence vocabulary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. Um I don't think people are objecting to "F"...it's who he WANTS TO "F".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. That's what I MEAN! He uses it so commonly it changes the meaning of the word.
It's like someone sayng oh shit, or damn it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocraticPilgrim Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
170. OK let's try this everytime you see a GOP candidate add Rahm, so Sharron Rahm Angle. Well worth a..
try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
174. Hmm...wouldn't anti-union also translate into
anti-Democratic Party? Maybe it's time to inform Obama that it's time to stop inviting foxes into the hen house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #174
180. I guess "New" Democrats have a different code. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
182. Rahm will rue the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC