ThinkFast: December 4, 2008
ThinkFast: December 4, 2008
Attorney General Michael Mukasey said yesterday that he sees “no reason for prosecutions or for pardons for those who gave legal advice on the Bush administration’s terrorism policies. “There is absolutely no evidence” that legal opinions on surveillance or interrogation policy were issued “for any reason other than to protect the security of the country,” claimed Mukasey.
House and Senate leaders are taking up legislation to cut the pay of Sen. Hillary Clinton and other members of Congress nominated by President-elect Barack Obama. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits new appointees from “serving in a confirmable position within the executive branch if that position has had its pay increased while they were serving in Congress.”
Chris Matthews is being advised to resign his post at MSNBC as soon as possible if he is serious about running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that Matthews is currently looking for a house in the state, some at NBC believe Matthews’s potential candidacy is simply a “negotiating ploy to jack up his contract.”
While the auto industry is arguing to Congress that it needs a financial bailout to avoid recession, CBS News reports that automakers spent nearly $50 million lobbying lawmakers in the first nine months of the year, along with another $15 million in campaign contributions.
In a surprise move, the United Auto Workers announced yesterday that the union would make major concessions in its contracts with the big three auto companies to help them lobby Congress for federal aid. The union said “members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care” to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.
Environmentalists began an online campaign yesterday “urging President-elect Barack Obama to undo a new federal rule that clarifies when coal companies can dump mining waste in streams.” The group Appalachian Voices and others say that the EPA’s endorsement of the rule on Tuesday will be “the death of freshwater streams and the probable start of a new surge in mountaintop removal surface mining.”
President-elect Obama “is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.” Obama has not publicly set a firm number for how large the “residual force” will be.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates “said the federal government must increase deficit spending to stimulate the economy and help the country’s most vulnerable residents.” We should have a bigger goal than getting the economy growing again,” Gates said in a speech at George Washington University. “I think we should expand the number of people who are contributing to the economy and benefiting from it.”
Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner “is seeking to push Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair out of office.” Geithner argues that “Bair isn’t a team player and is too focused on protecting her agency rather than the financial system as a whole.” The Obama team says Bair “won’t play a central role in policy.”
And finally: After Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) embarrassing conversation with a radio host pretending to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) wasn’t going to take any chances after someone called her saying he was Barack Obama. Ros-Lehtinen said, “I’m sorry but I think this is a joke from one of the South Florida radio stations known for these pranks,” and hung up. When Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called, Ros-Lehtinen again hung up. Only after a call from her friend Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) did Ros-Lehtinen finally realize her mistake. When Obama finally reached the congresswoman, he told her that he thought the whole incident was “funny.”
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“There is absolutely no evidence” that legal opinions on surveillance or interrogation policy were issued “for any reason other than to protect the security of the country,” claimed Mukasey.
Motive may matter when it comes to sentencing; it doesn’t matter when it comes to prosecution. It doesn’t make any difference if you dunk me in boiling oil for grins or to drive the debbul out, it’s still an abomination.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:04 amMukasey should be hauled up in court for obstruction of justice. He has done nothing since becoming AG except stall, hinder, and obfuscate.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:05 amWhich, of course, is exactly what he was told to do.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey said yesterday that he sees “no reason for prosecutions or for pardons for those who gave legal advice on the Bush administration’s terrorism policies.
______________________________________________________
Fortunately, Mukasey will soon be irrelevant, if he isn’t already. Better to leave these decisions to the new administration instead of our current administration protecting their own criminals.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:06 amcavjam: Exactly. The nuance of basic concepts of law are lost on Republican-appointed Attorneys General. And this dude was a judge. Every case he has ever heard should be revisited.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:08 amTreasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner “is seeking to push Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair out of office.” Geithner argues that “Bair isn’t a team player and is too focused on protecting her agency rather than the financial system as a whole.” The Obama team says Bair “won’t play a central role in policy.”
This is a shame. Ms. Bair is the only individual in this whole mess that seems to have the needs and concerns of the American people at heart. She’s been pushing for mortgage relief as part of the TARP, which Paulson and others have been refusing to do. Frankly, this doesn’t bode well for the new economic team if this woman is pushed out of office.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:12 amThe union said “members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care” to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.
___________________________________________________________
OK, we now have the CEOs claiming they will work for a buck, and the union says they will sacrifice job security and retiree health care.
Has anybody promised to make better cars?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am….to protect the security of the country” Mukasey said.
Funny thing, I read that’s the SAME reason the Nazis put all those people in concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, etc.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:16 amAttorney General Michael Mukasey said yesterday that he sees “no reason for prosecutions or for pardons for those who gave legal advice on the Bush administration’s terrorism policies. “There is absolutely no evidence” that legal opinions on surveillance or interrogation policy were issued “for any reason other than to protect the security of the country,” claimed Mukasey.
Mukasey was recommended and supported by Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. Feinstein was privy to intelligence information and knew about both the illegal surveillance and interrogation policy (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Committee on the Judiciary). Schumer was on the Judiciary Committee.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:17 amWhen Obama finally reached the congresswoman, he told her that he thought the whole incident was “funny.”
_____________________________________________________________
Fortunately, Obama has a sense of humor. I remember a scene from “The American President” where Michael Douglas (as the POTUS) was calling Annette Bening, who thought his call was a prank from one of her friends. When he realized she didn’t believe he was who he said he was, he just gave her the direct line to his secretary and told her to call that number. Perhaps Obama could try the same thing.
Or perhaps radio pranks in the future will become more elaborate, with giving out fake numbers to fake secretaries.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:17 amThe union shouldn’t give up anything, least of all health care or (I assume) pension benefits. Heck, if the industry had been smart in the first place it could have fully funded both of those and still made a profit. Instead, they tried to save money by cutting corners, waiting until “future profits” came in and raised top level executives salary through the roof. And have you seen their retirement plans? UGH!
As far as that joke AG is concerned: a fascist is always a fascist. Why no one has put this dude in jail years ago, I’ll never know except for one thing: there’s many corrupt people in high places now.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:20 amIf Chris Matthews is serious about running for the Senate, he should definitely resign from MSNBC as soon as possible (and I am assuming this would be a serious run for the job, not a stunt campaign). If he stayed, not only would his (alleged) objectivity as a broadcast journalist be impugned, but he would be constantly walking a thin line to avoid campaign violations.
If it is a negotiating ploy, it’s a rather lame one. MSNBC can easily replace him. Keith Olbermann he’s not.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:22 amUnion workers are the ones making real sacrifices, the CEOs can easily live off the money that they have already raked in. That working for a buck thing is a scam to keep the jobs they are so obviously inept at, after all, they had over 20 years to see the light and killed the electric car idea stone cold thanks to their friends in Big Oil (who are really the ones who should be bailing out the Big Three)
December 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am… CBS News reports that automakers spent nearly $50 million lobbying lawmakers in the first nine months of the year, along with another $15 million in campaign contributions.
and the banking/investment industry spent how much???
December 4th, 2008 at 9:28 amWhile the auto industry is arguing to Congress that it needs a financial bailout to avoid recession,
Partly as response to excellent objections Bilbo raised to a post of mine two weeks ago (which I couldn’t respond to ’cause I gotta work) -
Planned bankruptcy for GM is the only course that makes financial sense. GM’s debt obligations are too onerous to warrant anything else; a loan or whatever merely delays the mathematically inevitable (this is GM’s misdeed; they need to pay the price, not taxpayers). As a result, GM wouldn’t miss a minute of manufacturing; the only change would be in ownership – its creditors would own the company. They’d get between 30 and 50 cents on the dollar, equity would be wiped out, but the enterprise would continue.
As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, GM’s financial arm (a huge potential asset) would be sold, management would be bound to a maximum salary at 140% of top wage-earners, and union contracts would be renegotiated. The latter wouldn’t entail much loss for workers; contrary to common wisdom, GM has a pretty sweet deal with UAW giving them a skilled workforce with an in-place training program.
Let’s not forget ancillary events – universal healthcare would be a huge boon to the company.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am“There is absolutely no evidence” that legal opinions on surveillance or interrogation policy were issued “for any reason other than to protect the security of the country,” claimed Mukasey.
That makes them legal? Anything we do for the “security of our country” is legal? That’s kind of like saying “if the President does it, it’s legal”. Sorry, I would like to see this country go back to the rule of law.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 amMukasey is a War Criminal.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 amPresident-elect Obama “is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.”
Remind me why we elected this guy again? Next time support a real progressive like Kucinich.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am… a new federal rule that clarifies when coal companies can dump mining waste in streams.”
WHEN???!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:30 amThe government, bails-out failing companies with tax money(our money).
Failing companies use money(taxes) to lobby Congress.
Congress is stealing our money, giving to the rich, so that the rich can give it to the congressmen.
TIME TO BUY THE LONG-PUT-OFF AK-47 TODAY…
This shit HAS GOT TO END.
The Fascist States of America must be brought to it’s knees, or there is NO TURNING BACK.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:32 amWhile the auto industry is arguing to Congress that it needs a financial bailout to avoid recession, CBS News reports that automakers spent nearly $50 million lobbying lawmakers in the first nine months of the year, along with another $15 million in campaign contributions.
Ok, now to be fair, how about we talk about how much money the failing banks and financial institutions have spent lobbying and in campaign contributions. And they money they spent seems to have paid off big time.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:32 amWhen the Great Depression of ‘09 hits big time, then finally the feds will grudgingly use the dreaded “r” word…
how sickening has this great country become.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:33 amThe union said “members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care” to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.
This is really sad considering how much they have sacrificed in the last couple of years to keep the auto industry afloat. But, I guess if its a matter of giving up something to have a job vs. not having a job, they don’t have much of a choice.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:34 amObama has not publicly set a firm number for how large the “residual force” will be.
It doesn’t appear that the Iraqi’s are going to give him the opportunity to leave forces behind. The SOFA pretty much says we need to have all our troops out.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:36 amSheila Bair is the ONLY financial exec with a clue! She’s the only one in this whole bailout mess who is attempting to help the problem from the bottom up, rather than flinging billions at fat cats and hoping it will all go away. If Geithner is getting rid of Bair, it’s the biggest signal yet that Obama’s Washington is going to be business as usual. sniff..
December 4th, 2008 at 9:36 amTreasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner “is seeking to push Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair out of office.”
That’s interesting. From what I have read about Bair, she is the only one in the Bush administration who has done anything to help out our struggling homeowners. And she has done this by defying Bush. I’m not sure why Obama would want someone like that gone.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:38 amBut, I guess if its a matter of giving up something to have a job vs. not having a job, they don’t have much of a choice.
Let’s be honest, these aren’t normal jobs. These are highly coveted jobs with TONS of security and lifelong pension benefits. The days of “living large” are over. Time for everyone associated with the automotive industry to take a reality check.
Entitlement’s from the Big 3 are something most employees who’ve been spoiled by them are quite reluctant to lose.
And it also doesn’t help them gain a real perspective on the job market which the majority of us deal with everyday.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:39 amWhen Criminal Paulson looks at the American People with his shifty eyes and lies though his teeth and says there’s a “turn down” — I’ll always remember when he foisted his original crime bailout that was rejected.
This man should be hauled in handcuffs. (of course, who in BushCO. should not be)
I’m just disgusted what they want they American people to swallow.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:41 amthe original bailout proposal with no oversight was just 3 frickin’ pages!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:42 amPresident-elect Obama “is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq,…
from this article:
News An alysis
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
By THOM SHANKER
isn’t “news an alysis” the same thing as “opinion”…
just wondering…
“To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.”
but i (shanker) and many others will be trying our best to make sure that happens…
December 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am“There is absolutely no evidence” that legal opinions on surveillance or interrogation policy were issued “for any reason other than to protect the security of the country,”
I said: “Officer, there is absolutely no evidence I was breaking the speed limit for any other reason than to complete my journey as quickly as possible.”
And he said, “Oh, okay then.”
December 4th, 2008 at 9:44 amPeople who overextended on the purchase of overpriced homes should not be bailed-out. Neither should the banks that lent to them. Neither should the car makers. The right of private parties to contract (and to suffer the consequences of their decisions) should not be abridged by the government. Regulations on the front end (with appropriate and vigilant enforcement) is the only way the government should be involved. Bail-outs create a moral hazard.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:44 amANN ARBOR, Michigan (UWIRE) — Amanda Emery, a junior at the University of Michigan-Flint, was born and raised in a General Motors family.
Her parents both logged more than 30 years on the job for the automotive giant — her mother, Cathy, as a skilled welder in a Flint, Michigan, truck plant and her father, Gary, as a company electrician and supervisor.
Her uncle worked on the assembly line in a GM plant in Flint, and a cousin works on the assembly line at the same Flint factory.
Now retired from GM, Emery’s parents live off their company retirement packages, which include monthly income and health insurance for them and their children, among other benefits.
Those who’ve been suckling the teet of a dying beast while ignoring the rotting flesh deserve how much sympathy?
While they certainly deserve any deferred compensation that went into pension accounts, with everything pointing to the end of the dominance of the Big 3, anyone looking toward the auto industry for a comfy job is a complete fool.
When your parents pensions are in trouble, look to another field of work, mmmkay???
December 4th, 2008 at 9:46 amDNFP Says:
Let’s be honest, these aren’t normal jobs. These are highly coveted jobs with TONS of security and lifelong pension benefits. The days of “living large” are over. Time for everyone associated with the automotive industry to take a reality check.
I guess you aren’t up on what has happened between the unions and the auto industry. They have, in the last couple of years, given up a lot including agreeing to a two tier wage scale with newly hired workers starting at somewhere around $14 an hour, which is barely a livable wage.
I see nothing wrong with a job that has some security tied to it along with pension benefits. That is how the middle class was born. I guess you would rather we go back to a society of the haves and the have-nots, because that’s where we are headed.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:48 amthis is curious:
Lawsuit contesting Obama citizenship continues
Chicago Tribune – 4 hours ago
AP CHICAGO – Opponents of Barack Obama will learn this week whether the US Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit contesting the president-elect’s citizenship.
‘Tribune’ Ad Creates Stir: Birth Certificate Issue Refuses To Go Away Evening Bulletin
Supreme Court to consider hearing case challenging Obama’s citizenship Detroit Free Press
Honolulu Advertiser – Kansas City Star – WND.com – WorldNetDaily
all 33 news articles »
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1277310244&hl=en&topic=n
from the FREEP:
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio v. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance among people with little knowledge of Supreme Court processes, Volokh said.
huh. … whodduthunkit.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:48 amLast night on ABC, there was another false story of the unions making more than $70/hour.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:49 amI expect that every American will be making sacrifices, forced to do so one way or the other, but when the media neglect to fact check their stories, they feed the lamebrains.
And it also doesn’t help them gain a real perspective on the job market which the majority of us deal with everyday.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
So you think the country needs to deprive the UAW workers the benefits for which they negotiated?
Why not work to assure that everybody gets a similarly good deal?
Is there some law that says blue-collar workers can’t do well?
Don’t kvetch! Organize!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:49 amKaty, I was among many who wrote to the Tribune on that issue of Obama’s citizenship. First the Trib takes money for a full page ad from the radical nut case and his organization, then they run a news story debunking the charges in the ad.
So why did they run the ad in the first place? Money!
The matter is going all the way up to the SCOTUS. Ridiculous.
The whining repugniscum want to prevent Obama’s presidency with this last ditch effort, just as they want to prevent HRC from taking the SoS job because of the pay increases she voted for. The House will probably pass legislation reducing the salary of the SoS so to avoid further debate on the matter; and I hope the SCOTUS will throw out this lawsuit challenging Obama.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:54 amI see nothing wrong with a job that has some security tied to it along with pension benefits.
They all took jobs that paid better than any I’ve ever had.
Those jobs come with risk.
But then again, Americans are too damn entitled to EVER fail, right.
They don’t take jobs with the Big 3 cause they’re out of choices – it’s for the pay.
When you swim with sharks, don’t cry when you’ve been bitten.
It’s a matter of personal responsibility, something Unions wouldn’t know much about – that’s why they form – Mass Mentality to fight the Mass Leadership.
Besides, the writings been on the wall for decades, yet still, people lined up to work for the Big Fat Dying Whale.
IDIOTS.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am*
I
miss
Joe Cantwell’s
posts…
~
December 4th, 2008 at 10:03 amThanks
yes, marie, that is curious to me:
prohibits new appointees from “serving in a confirmable position within the executive branch if that position has had its pay increased while they were serving in Congress.”
i mean, those people didn’t know they would be appointees when they voted on and passed that pay increase… i don’t get it…
especially, as TP notes, “House and Senate leaders are taking up legislation to cut the pay…” … the Dem leaders don’t want hillary to be SOS??? what’s that about???
about the SCOTUS – if not for thomas, it wouldn’t even be considered… what’s HE up to?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:05 amjust as they want to prevent HRC from taking the SoS job because of the pay increases she voted for.
Actually, I believe these pay raises were not something that was voted on by the Senate, but was the result of one of Bush’s Executive Decisions.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:07 amLast night on ABC, there was another false story of the unions making more than $70/hour.
If your pay was tied to retirement benefits that begin after 25 yrs of work (imagine retiring at 45 years old), and if your workers comp and unemployment were based on a 70/hour salary, you’d find your take-home pay to be around 30/hour after deductions.
Hell, I made $12500 profit on one job, but only received $7500, because of deductions. So depending on who you’re trying to impress or deceive, I could claim either wage.
It’s really simple.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:09 amDNFP Says:
I see nothing wrong with a job that has some security tied to it along with pension benefits.
They all took jobs that paid better than any I’ve ever had.
Sounds like sour grapes to me, DNFP. I avoided working for a corporation for a large part of my career, but when I was a single mother, and was laid off of two non-corporate jobs twice over a period of four years, I sought a job with a very large corporation. Why? An opportunity to make some decent money and provide security for myself and my child. And yes, that included health care benefits. My bad, I guess, huh?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:13 amThat doesn’t make those jobs morally suspect, nor does it impart some kind of injustice that can only be remedied by those jobs being destroyed.
ALL jobs come with risks. The UAW and other unions use their collective bargaining power to REDUCE the risk for their members. They negotiate for certain conditions and once a contract is settled on and signed, those conditions are required to be met by all parties.
The entitlement comes directly from the right to collective bargaining, and from the contracts negotiated, voted upon and signed.
This is a bad thing? I take the jobs that I choose “because of the pay”. I’ll wager that most of the posters here (except for the trolls) take jobs “because of the pay”.
So, you’re saying that auto workers shouldn’t “cry” because management has mismanaged the industry to the point of professional malpractice, thus putting their jobs and benefits for which they have contracted, at risk?
Wow. I’ve never known you to sound like a wingnut before, DNFP. But this statement — the broad-brush swipe at an entire class of worker, the misplaced attack on “personal responsibility” — could have come from the keyboard of Tim Vacuous. Sorry to say it.
You have a point here, but the Big Fat Dying Whale isn’t Fat and Dying because of the unions. It’s because management was incapable of following the lead of the Japanese and the Germans while their foreign competitors were eating their lunch.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amgreat photo used for this story.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:23 amCaption: Bush defeated in shadow boxing match while AG applauds his opponent
December 4th, 2008 at 10:30 amTreasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner “is seeking to push Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair out of office.” Geithner argues that “Bair isn’t a team player and is too focused on protecting her agency rather than the financial system as a whole.” The Obama team says Bair “won’t play a central role in policy.”
This Geithner fella is one I’m going to watch very closely. Any attempts to silence progressive voices before reaching the president’s ear will not sit well by me.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:32 amHouse and Senate leaders are taking up legislation to cut the pay of Sen. Hillary Clinton and other members of Congress nominated by President-elect Barack Obama. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits new appointees from “serving in a confirmable position within the executive branch if that position has had its pay increased while they were serving in Congress.”
What the hell is this? Is this the neocon’s Hillary derangement syndrome at work? Were they talking about this when Dick Cheney left congress to serve as Secretary of Defense? Rob Portman? Many others? Hillary has made millions from her book and Bill in speeches and they actually believe she is motivated by a $20,000 increase in salary?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:41 amA good-paying job with security and benefits comes with no more risk than a crummy job with no benefits. Both can vanish instantly due to the stupidity or malfeasance of the management.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:41 amWhy do auto workers have good jobs? Not because of the nature of the industry, or enlightened management (ha!) but because they have a strong union. Those jobs were fought for for decades with hard negotiations and strikes. This is not ‘luck’ or a speculation on auto workers part, but tough pressure to turn what could be horrible jobs into good ones.
Moreover, auto workers have endured layoffs and givebacks as the Japanese took a huge chunk of the auto market, and as robots replaced line workers. They haven’t been insulated.
And it has to be said, over and over:
THE AUTO INDUSTRY ISNOT GOING BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF HIGH LABOR PRICES. It’s going bankrupt because of BAD MANAGEMENT.
GM killed their electric car. Only the Japanese were making hybrids. They kept churning out SUV’s long after themarket tanked. They paid attention to none of the trends–and when they were being forced to by governments, they lobbied instead of changing.
If GM were making EV-1’s, they’d be doing fine. Or at very least not bankrupt.
The manufacturing system that is the auto industry is a worthwhile asset to prreserve: it wiorks wel, and there’s plenty of workfor it to do if we’re to switch away from dependence on fossil fuels and minimize global warming.
The management of that syste,OTOH, has to go. now.
@44 – Hear, hear, Ralphie. Good one.
~A
December 4th, 2008 at 10:43 amGee, nice anti-union pet peeve, DNFP.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 amBecause he didn’t get us into this war of atrition, because he didn’t destroy our economy and because he is our best chance to fix these problems.
you could have voted for Kucinich but if you had in large numbers we would be inaugurating mccsame in January…..simple.
As far as dnfp. What has happened to you man. You blame union workers for a company failing because of bad choices by management? Really?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:30 amyou could have voted for Kucinich but if you had in large numbers we would be inaugurating mccsame in January…..simple.
No, Kucinich could’ve easily beaten McCain. Hell, my dog could’ve beaten McCain. And I don’t own a dog.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:35 amGary Kleppe Says:
I’m sorry, I disagree. I like Kucinich but he would have gotten us beaten this year….maybe at a time in the future that will change but it wasn’t his year this year.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:45 amMcWars,
I’m a member of a Union (Musicians Local 47), but the UAW is no better than the US Government as far as shooting themselves in the foot. I never have to go to shitty meetings, we’re never a news item, and they send me quarterly checks.
Anyway, found this to be VERY interesting:
Some Brains Are Wired for Change
People who welcome new experiences have stronger connections between their memory and reward brain centers than people who tend to avoid anything new, research now shows.
Specifically, people who actively seek lifestyle changes may have a more developed connection between two specific brain areas: the hippocampus, a site for storing and retrieving new and old memories, and the ventral striatum, a reward system which is responsible for those carpe diem moments, said researcher Dr. Bernd Weber of the Life & Brain Center at the University of Bonn in Germany. Turns out, if the hippocampus identifies an experience as new, it then relays signals to the striatum to release neurotransmitters which lead to positive feelings.
“The strength of the connection is positively correlated to novelty seek[ers] … but this does not imply that having weaker connections is a ‘bad’ thing,” Weber told LiveScience.
LINK
From what I gather from this is that those who don’t feel a sense of reward from novelty (change) avoid it.
Like a caveman.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am…in short, NO SYMPATHY FROM THIS UNION MEMBER FOR THE UAW.
And “bad management” is a two-way street.
I’ve pulled my resources and walked out on every shit-laced, corrupt employer becauese I DON’T WORSHIP MONEY, I DON’T LIVE FOR MONEY.
I’ve lived in some of the worst places and honestly, the trappings of “wealth” are a burden to me.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:55 amSounds like sour grapes to me, DNFP.
No different than saying Trial Lawyers all took higher paying jobs than me, but that certainly doesn’t mean I want to be a lawyer.
If sour grapes is pointing to the fallacy of those better off than me WHINING about their personal situation which they’re partially to blame for, then please pour me a pint.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pmMcWars Says:
——————————————————————————–
House and Senate leaders are taking up legislation to cut the pay of Sen. Hillary Clinton and other members of Congress nominated by President-elect Barack Obama. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits new appointees from “serving in a confirmable position within the executive branch if that position has had its pay increased while they were serving in Congress.”
What the hell is this? Is this the neocon’s Hillary derangement syndrome at work? Were they talking about this when Dick Cheney left congress to serve as Secretary of Defense? Rob Portman? Many others? Hillary has made millions from her book and Bill in speeches and they actually believe she is motivated by a $20,000 increase in salary?
It is just a simple matter of following the Constitution. Hillary is not the first to go from Congress to the Executive who had to have a special pay cut to comply with the Emoulment clause.
And like you say, they are worth millions, $20K is chump change to them.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pmHow specifically is the union members situation something they are partially responsible for?
They have made concessions to what they had bargained for….now the company who failed to see the handwritting on the wall wants them to make more concessions….to a barley living wage…..please don’t contend that they are getting wealthy working for gm…..that smacks of calling welfare a failure and that people who draw welfare do it to get wealthy….a republican talking point in both cases.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pmMmmm, anyone got a better vintage, these sour grapes need fermenting…
How specifically is the union members situation something they are partially responsible for?
In a free society, I believe one has the choice to seek whatever job they like.
Are these UAW workers slaves? By whose accord?
It’s not always easy to walk out the door of an employer, but sometimes, desperate times call for desperate actions. But these employees, chose to stick by their rotting corpse of a corporation in attempt to suck every last drop of blood from it.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pmDNFP Says:
speaking oo sticking by rotting corpses……just sayin.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pmFred,
Just lending a voice as a Union member to a bunch of clap-trap from those who aren’t.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pmDNFP Says:
You seem to misunderstand….maybe willfully the intent and purpose of a union.
These jobs are what were available to working class Americans and they worked hard to make living wage jobs out of them.
The company prospered for many years despite concessions to the wage earners….to say that they are now responsible for it’s failure is patently unfair and expsoses an agenda.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pmFred,
I didn’t say they are responsible, but they certainly aren’t as innocent as people make them out to be.
What’s wrong with quitting your job if it sucks? That’s what the rest of us do!
Life is hard, and especially hard on those who can’t handle it.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:46 pmLook (final note, got to go shopping), I’m all for the workers to remain employed or at least receive Gov assistance to remain employed (training).
But the current crisis the Automakers are in is a clusterfcuk with enough blame for everyone involved.
There’s no easy fix. And the “fix” our retarded Government will finally dole out with be fraught with corruption and greed – business as usual – with no foresight or vision.
That’s why my sympathy has expired for these poor souls. I’m tired of the braying old mare, put a bullet in him already.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pmWell, which is it, are they responsible or not….you seem to want to have it both ways.
When you are in your fifties and have worked your entire life at one job it’s not so easy to just quit and give up health insurance and pensions just because your job sucks……sounds mightily like a pull yourself up by your bootstaps kind of a comment to me….sorry, I relate to thier plight…….don’t understand your lack of compassion.
life is hard…….did you really say that? So, what, they should just lay down and die and give up on everything they worked for their entire life?
You know, you are a musician and I don’t think that is the same as a manufacturing job……most people work hard jobs for barley enough to get by….including union memebers in manufacturing……..I don’t think you understand nearly as much as you want me to believe that you do.
Throw down that horn and get a real job and get back with me.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:00 pmDNFP
ok tuff guy…..go buy a new gm product and support working class Americans..
December 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pmThe emoluments clause:
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
Here is a better explanation of the history of the clause and it’s application: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm2149.cfm
This is actually an interesting, if arcane, constitutional question related to checks and balances. Madison wanted to prevent the executive from “buying support” even if it prevented legitimate appointments.
Congress reducing the salary before the appointment begins circumvents this clause but may still meet the original intent because it still requires Congressional support for the Executive to “buy support”. Checks and balances are still in place. If two branches of government are corrupt then we are all screwed anyway and checks and balances can’t help.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pmDNFP
I don’t mind your taking the time to present your side. Feel passionate about your case, fine, but I believe Fred made the better case. These people have worked hard at what they’ve known their entire lives. Packing up and going back to school for a new career at an advanced age in an era of rampant age discrimination is simply infeasible. My take is that I don’t care that UAW continues to fight for the middle class that used to be, even as overall union membership is down and more people have accepted their declining wages. That complacency hasn’t exactly been good for the overall economy.
I personally couldn’t imagine myself joining a union but not everyone can be spared of a callous, cold, calculating employer telling them one thing (Full pensions! Generous health benefits! Come work for us!) only to be told something else 20-30 years later.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pmVolokh’s linked post says:
“though it has been dissented from during the Reagan Administration, when the Administration’s conclusion that the Saxbe fix was unconstitutional apparently helped lead to the selection of Robert Bork”
The Saxbe fix can’t be used for judges because their salaries can’t be reduced. In other words, you can’t reduce the salary of the new judge’s predecessor to get around the emoluments clause.
From Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
December 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm