Killing it softly - Social Security........

[suston96]

Not another Social Security is dying thread? No, not really.

Don't wanna bail out the big three automakers? How many jobs will be lost? How many jobs are being lost with other failures and bankruptcies? Know what that means? Unemployment! Know what unemployment means?

No paychecks. No Social Security and Medicare contributions and no tax revenues. Getting the picture?

And the auto makers don't want a bailout. They want guaranteed loans. Like Chrysler got in 1980. Like Chrysler paid back with 350 million dollars in interest - interest paid to the US Government - ahead of time.

Think before you condemn and degrade. We are talking about jobs! It is ALL about jobs and what the loss of those jobs means right now! 14 million jobs associated with the auto making industry?

Know why we have the United States of America? Among a number of reasons there is: Promote the general welfare!

The general welfare - including Social Security and Medicare and the like - which are in deep trouble - right now - not 30 years from now.

Think about it.

[murray hill farm]

1. I am sure thinking about it!

my retirement income is from SS and from State of Michigan retirement pension....yikes!

[suston96]

2. Yours and mine - our SS payments come from present day employed payers into the system.......

Present generation employees and their employers are paying into the SS and Medicare funding. Add up all those lost jobs.......?

Yikes is right!

[customerserviceguy]

3. Social security was headed for hard times one way or the other

I figured the next recession would hurt it badly. The last time "reforms" were done to the system was right after the 1979-82 recession. That resulted in some tax increases and benefit cuts that shored up the system.

In any case, the tsunami of the baby boomers retiring is coming, good times or bad. The peak year of the baby boom was 1957, that group will be eligible for early benefits starting in 2019, a bit more than ten years away. If the economy is good by then, I would expect most of those folks to stay working for a few years more, if the economy is back in (or still in) the toilet, I would expect most of them to try to apply for early benefits.

The first group of baby boomers born in 1946 will get no benefit whatsoever in delaying taking SS in 2016, I would expect that to be the year when outflow really starts to hit the system. In other words, we have just the Obama Administration's time, should he be fortunate enough to win re-election, in which to fix this.

[suston96]

4. Lemme try this another way..........

Social Security can be hurt if, as pointed out, revenues start matching payouts. That's a given.

But......population growth needs matching job growth which both mean a matching growth in the economy.

If the economy and jobs do not keep up with that population growth then our problems will be a lot bigger than just Social Security.

It's about jobs - it will always be about jobs.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Fundamentally, yes, it will be about jobs

but it will also be about restructuring Social Security to deal with the demographic certainties headed our way. Even if the economy was humming along merrily at the pace it did under the second Clinton term (pre dot-bomb), we'd still be on a collision course with reality.

We should feel good that a Democratic Congress and true Democratic President (not just a DLC'er) are the ones to deal with this, we dodged a bullet with the first half of Shrub's first term. If 9/11 hadn't happened, they might have used their political capital to "fix" Social Security instead of adopting the draconian Patriot Act.

It's a combination of jobs programs that produce sustainable jobs (not just dumping money into zombie companies), restructuring of the Social Security Systems schedule of incomes and payouts, and tax policies that make it possible for individuals to save for their own retirements (not just the fat cats) that will deal with the coming demographic hurricane. Americans have rightfully put their trust in President-Elect Obama and the Democratic Party to figure out an equitable formula.

[Hannah Bell]

26. SS was instituted in the deepest Depression the country's ever seen.

So BS on the "restructuring".

"restructuring" is just what some folks want - but it will not be good for me & thee.

[earth mom]

5. You betcha the intention is to kill off those Union Jobs, Social Security, and the US Postal Service

too.

This is the reason why I am so worried about Obama being so right of center. Who knows what he'll do given he voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout?

It doesn't look good folks. :yoiks:

[nichomachus]

6. Social Security would be just fine

If they'd stop stealing money from the trust fund to give to corporations to spend on lavish parties, obscene executive salaries, and bonuses.

[suston96]

7. Nobody "steals" money from the Trust Fund because there is no "money" there.....

The Trust Fund is just an accounting number on a balance sheet. Google SS Trust Fund.

[nichomachus]

11. But there should be -- and they stole it

Contrary to what the anti-SS want you to believe, the population figures aren't a surprise. They knew this was coming. The actuaries took it into account. SS should be just fine, if people would leave it alone. It may need some minor tinkering, but it was designed to handle the population balance. The "SS is dying" meme has been started by the Grover Norquists of the world who want to destroy it and want people to buy into it.

[customerserviceguy]

13. It was taken

many years ago by politicians of both parties who used what should have been sizable balances to buy votes. The expansion of the burdens of what the Social Security Trust Fund has had to shoulder should have come out of other forms of income besides a tax on work.

[defendandprotect]

19. If government repaid what was "borrowed" SS would be infinitely soluble --

[customerserviceguy]

20. Yes, and there are indeed securities on deposit

for just such a purpose. But we've been too busy funding wars and tax cuts for the rich to think about doing that, I'm afraid.

[defendandprotect]

21. Glad some of the truth is getting out -- such a heavy campaign against SS for decades--!!

:)

[customerserviceguy]

22. It's still going to need the wisdom of a Solomon

to save it. The population dynamics I've outlined above are not mere opinions, they're numerical reality. It's going to take some difficult decisions and hard choices.

[defendandprotect]

23. No -- SS is healthier than ever -- even Bush people said so --!!

We need to get the ceiling raised so that wealthier people contribute longer --

the ceiling is a cut off point for their contributions which keeps burden on

poor and middle class --

We have to stop the borrowing --

And, originally, FICA formula was 2/3rds paid by employer and 1/3rd by employee --

They changed that as Carter came in to 50-50 basis--!!

ALSO, keep in mind when SS first began only males were employed --

we've doubled contributors with women going to work --

****************************************************

And huge numbers of illegal immigrants pay in and never collect --

[customerserviceguy]

24. What did you think

about my idea for a graduated rate on the FICA tax?

I acknowledge that more has come in, but way more has been going out. If the baby boom birthrate had continued, we might have had a sustainable system, but the baby bust has pretty much guaranteed that we will have fewer workers supporting each retiree than we have ever had. It's just mathematics without ideology.

[defendandprotect]

25. No -- you've drunk the Kool-aid r-w propaganda ....

I'd lift the ceiling substantially .. cut off $98,000 now/????

which means a millionaire only pays FICA on $98,000 of his income --!!

should be at least $125,000 or more --

BAN BORROWING for any cause --

Again ... we've more than DOUBLED the contributors to SS --

and right-wing "baby boom" propaganda is just that -- propaganda --!!


ALSO...keep in mind that SS is supposed to be "pay-as-you go" with NO

accummulation of funds/surplusses --

Creating huge $100 billion and more surplusses for "borrowing" increases

burden on poor and middle class because all SS contributors have to more in FICA

rates to raise those surplusses ---!!!

[Hannah Bell]

28. If you want to turn SS into "welfare", go ahead & lift the ceiling.

It's there for a reason.

The reason is: so the rich can't make the case that they're paying most of the freight & getting nothing back, & use this to cut the program.

There's nothing that needs fixing but our casino economy.

[defendandprotect]

38. As we did in earlier bdays, we can expect wealthier to pay their fair share --

based on "earn more/pay more" --

They are underpaying noe --

both in FICA, and as employers who have reversed the FICA ratio to 50/50 ...

used to be 2/3rds paid by employer and 1/3rd paid by employee --

Also true of unemployment withholding -- which was reversed.


General taxes on rich have also been so reduced they're paying less than

average citizens. All if this has to be readjusted.

Quickly ...

[Hannah Bell]

42. SS was set up to cover 90% of wages & still does, approximately.

The only thing that's changed is the increase in % paid to fund a surplus.

Income taxes are a different story, not a good idea to intertwine the two, they aren't the same thing.

The cap works fine. Lower rates to cover current retirees & fund the general budget with income tax.

[defendandprotect]

45. SS FICA basis was changed ...

...reversed the FICA ratio to 50/50 ...

originally was 2/3rds paid by employer and 1/3rd paid by employee --


I'm not "intertwining SS and general taxes" ...

The basis of my comment which I will reemphasize for you is that in all

areas we need PROGRESSIVE rates ... i.e., "earn more/pay more."


Again -- good news that the ceiling is being increased.

[Hannah Bell]

46. I believe you're mistaken. SS was set up 1% each employer & employee.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html (see #2)

Employers, to my knowledge, have never paid 2/3, & both halves of SS taxes are considered part of employee compensation (employers get a irs deduction), so are in reality are paid by employees.

I agree with you on progressivity in income tax, & tax when taken as a whole, but SS is DISBURSED progressively. If your worklife doesn't pan out well due to disability etc. you'll receive more than you paid in. If it pans out well, you'll receive less.

But everyone who works pays the same rate on all their earnings; this is a strength, not a weakness.

[defendandprotect]

47. You're mistaken ...and think you can chech that info

in Wm. Greider's book "Who Will Tell The People" -- for one --

Took effect in '76 or '80/??

SS is "insurance" -- if disaster strikes you collect -- lucky you--!!!

Husband dies ...? Disabled...?

[Hannah Bell]

51. What took effect in 76/80?

The employer/employee split has always been 50/50.

The Greenspan fix (acceleration of fica % increases to generate big surpluses) was 1983.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html

SS is required, since its foundation, to maintain a Trust Fund of a certain % of expected disbursements, but there was no substantial TF beyond this until Greenspan; & no need for one - not then, not now.


If you are the spouse or child of a vested worker, you receive SS.

If you are a disabled vested worker, you receive SS.


I'm not sure what your point is.

I believe we're on the same side on this, but I'm not sure. My article on the subject:

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?cat=364


The PTB have (purposefully) succeeded in confusing most of the population on SS. There's a lot of erroneous info out there, i.e. that the TF has been "stolen", that increased funding is necessary, etc.



Perhaps you're confusing Social Security disability (SSDI) & Supplemental Security Income (SSI)?

SSDI is funded from Social Security taxes. Disabled workers who've paid into the SS system long enough to be vested get this.

SSI is "welfare". It's paid from income taxes, not SS taxes, to disabled people who've not worked enough to be vested in SS.

Both programs are administered by SS, but only one is paid from SS funds. Many people confuse the two, & IMO, the names were designed so they would be confused (again, in order to make people think their SS taxes were being used to support "lazy drug addicts," etc.)

http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

[defendandprotect]

53. Sorry.. you're wrong .. and not wasting any more time with replies --

I'm not sure when the shift in FICA ratio happened --

I'll check it sometime when I next come across info --

But it changed FICA from 2/3rd contribution by employer and 1/3rd by employee

to 50/50 --


Further, there was a surplus long before Greenspan -- he merely increased it by

increasing FICA withholding rates -- AND, the funds were borrowed before

Greenspan --


My point on survivor's benefits is that SS is "insurance" and given your

comment that some people collect more .. I tried to make clear that it wasn't

for any reason any of us would desire. As in ...

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

57. Oh, don't bother checking "when you have time". You're wrong, here's the full rate history:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/oasdiRates.html

It was 50/50 when it was founded, & has never changed.


Furthermore, you're wrong on Greenspan's hikes, here are the figures:

Performance of Social Security Trust Funds in Inflation-Adjusted (2005) Dollars*

Year Nominal $ (Millions) 2005 $ (Millions)

1943 4,820 55,709
1953 18,707 132,760
1963 20,715 129,015
1973 44,414 199,960
1983 24,867 48,434
1993 378,285 507,152
2003 1,530,764 1,611,323
2005 1,858,660 1,856,660

(*Social Security Administration, “Performance of Social Security Trust Funds, 1937-2005.”)


"I tried to make clear that it wasn't for any reason any of us would desire."

You'd prefer your spouse to die & leave you totally penniless? I don't understand your point.


By the terms of the 1936 legislation, there HAS to be a surplus, & it HAS to be equal to something like 50% of one year's payout. So of COURSE there was a surplus before Greenspan. It never went over 200,000 million in inflation-adjusted 2005 $ until the 1983 "reform".


I don't expect you to admit you're wrong. Apparently you're so very busy spreading bullshit & using the sarcasm thingy you've got no time for research, & certainly no time for apologies.

I've spent many, many hours going through many years of SS reports. i don't mind someone being snotty when they're way better informed than I am, or I've been snotty first.

But it's pretty obnoxious when someone who doesn't know shit & "doesn't have time" to back up his shit is also rude & snotty.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Interesting, all that "baby boom" & "baby bust" stuff was right wing propganda

and here I thought it was all demographic science.

How about this: "Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 78 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted." Got that from the Social Security's own website. (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html)

You are aware that the SS formulas for what to pay on benefits are currently pegged to what the worker has been paying on, aren't you? Raise the wage base, and you raise the payout amounts. You're also raising those payments to people more likely to have afforded better health care than workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. They'll survive longer and collect more than poorer folks.

Also, this year's wage base is $102,000, not $98,000. It will go to $106,500 in 2009. It's heading up towards your $125K goal.

[Igel]

39. "combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted"

Precisely. That's the problem. The Trust Fund consists of IOUs, a special kind of security issued by the government promising to pay.

So, what happens in 2050, assuming that FICA taxes don't cover the outlays? How's it different from today?

Well, first, there's no FICA excess. It's covering for part of the deficit (silently, just reducing the deficit number). Do you reduce spending, increase taxes, or watch the deficit soar? After 2017--or probably a few years later than that--FICA doesn't cover any of Congress' profligacy any longer. It covers less and less from now till then.

So not only does SS stop covering for profligacy, it starts being a drain. They have to dip into the trust fund to fund SS payments. Ah, but the trust fund is IOUs. Where does the money come from to repay the IOUs? The general income tax revenue pool. By dipping into the trust fund, they dip into general income tax revenues. Tack on a few hundred billion out of general revenues after a decade or two. Do you reduce spending, increase taxes, or watch the deficit soar? (Didn't I type that already?)

It's a shell game. They don't use general income tax to fund SS. They use general income tax to redeem IOUs, money spent in the last 20 years by Congress. The money from redeeming the IOUs funds SS.

Hence the problem. The fiscal problem is identical if you include the IOUs or if you simply pretend they don't exist.

[defendandprotect]

41. Again .. you're into the Bush/WSJ Kool Aid ...

read what I've said above --

[defendandprotect]

40. Are you aware that SS payments would probably be double if GOP

hadn't been gimmicking all the statistics ...???

You're now repeating a "Bushed" report --
Do you believe them on war, economy, 9/11, Global Warming, spying on citizens--???

It took Bush a while to control the reports ..
His own people reported soluble even past what Clinton Admin reported --
past 2037 into 2041 ..

Also, this year's wage base is $102,000, not $98,000. It will go to $106,500 in 2009. It's heading up towards your $125K goal.

Did you notice a question mark after $98,000 ...??

And happy it's going up --!!!







Interesting, all that "baby boom" & "baby bust" stuff was right wing propganda
Posted by laptoprepairguy
and here I thought it was all demographic science.

How about this: "Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 78 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted." Got that from the Social Security's own website. (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html )

You are aware that the SS formulas for what to pay on benefits are currently pegged to what the worker has been paying on, aren't you? Raise the wage base, and you raise the payout amounts. You're also raising those payments to people more likely to have afforded better health care than workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. They'll survive longer and collect more than poorer folks.

[customerserviceguy]

56. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what's been "Bushed"

and no, I don't believe him on the war, etc. But I've known about the demographics for many years, I started reading about it during the Carter Administration. Clearly, there was a problem at that time, there were "fixes" made to Social Security at that time, initially suggested by a bipartisan commission, and adopted in the early 1980's by a Democratically-controlled Congress. I used to do taxes in those days, and I got pretty heavily into the language of them.

However, they were a short-term stopgap, and they assumed economic growth rates that have not been sustained. Since the early 80's, we've not had a really severe recession, but we're in one now. The crisis has gotten nearer to our doorstep.

Politicians have a history of not worrying about things that take place further out than the next election or two, why is is difficult to believe that they would have even less regard for something that happens way after they've retired, or are dead? I believe that Social Security, the expanding national debt, and global warming are just three of the most severe of these things.

[Hannah Bell]

58. SS payments would be double? What are you talking about?

[Hannah Bell]

52. You need to look into the figures to see what assumptions that deficity prediction is based on,

and how accurate forecasting has been.

1. assumption is depression-era growth for infinite # of years, &
2. past forecasts have been inaccurate, i.e. they haven't even been able to predict the next 5 years accurately, let alone the next 75.

SS was designed as a straight-across transfer: each generation of workers pays for the next. If each generation produces enough goods & services for the population to consume, there is no problem.

OTOH, if the top 1-5% wants to rake off more of the surplus, there IS a problem. Which is what the problem is.

[Hannah Bell]

29. Except you've omitted the part where each generation of workers produces more

than the one before it.

The population dynamics you outline are part of the right-wing spin, maybe you don't realize it.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Yes, there are more dollars taken in taxes

from each generation than the others, but that's mainly a function of inflation, both of wages and of the cap.

I do believe that the baby boom and the baby bust have economic consequences, however. Even without recession. And I think we've started a pretty severe one.

[Hannah Bell]

43. No, they don't - or shouldn't, if workers got an equitable share of production.

It makes no difference that 2 people support 1 retiree where before it was 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 - if those two workers produce double, triple, quadruple etc. what previous generations of workers did. So long as they get paid in accord with that increased production.

The only question re SS has to do with how productive our economy is, not with the demographics.

If we can't support our elders with SS, then we can't support them, period. Not with pensions, not with welfare, not with private savings.

If anyone tells you different, they're lying.

[customerserviceguy]

54. That would be nice

but it would require great amounts of growth to accomplish. If we establish that at a particular point in time, it takes, say, $18,000 to support a senior citizen in our society, and we have ten workers supporting that person, they need to each contribute (through their own payroll deductions and the matching ones from their employers, which are clearly a cost to the employer of hiring that person) $1,800, or about $150 a month. Using today's Social Security percentages, that would mean each worker would have to make a bit less than $15,000 a year to sustain that.

However, if we get to the point where there are three people supporting that retiree, we either need them to make an average of over $46,000 per employee, or the tax rate needs to be higher, or the amount that the senior citizen gets goes down from the $18K. As you can imagine, if we go to two people supporting a senior, the math gets more grim.

It's mere arithmetic, it doesn't have an ideology. I seem to recall that Pythagoras built a religion around his famous theorem regarding right triangles, but other than that, the only math that I'm familiar with that is involved with a belief structure is that "loaves and fishes" magic trick that Jesus was supposed to have done way back when. I don't believe that happened, and I don't believe that anything other than tinkering with tax rates or amounts paid out will make a difference.

Oh, and growth will, too. The sort that we had for various times in the post WWII period would go a long way towards helping the remaining part of the equation, which is what each worker makes. The only problem is, we have difficulty sustaining that kind of growth for extended periods of time. Sometimes things look like growth, but they are just inflationary bubbles, like the real estate one we've just seen pop.

[Hannah Bell]

59. "but it would require great amounts of growth to accomplish"

uh, no, it wouldn't. It would require the owning classes to take a smaller cut of the surplus.

People don't live on money, they live on goods & services.

Say it took 16 workers to produce an acre of wheat in 1900, & only 1 now. That means that inflation-adusted wages for that one worker should be 16 times higher than in 1900, support 16 times more people, buy 16 times more goods & services. But they don't, they buy less.

IF the US can't produce enough to support its elders on SS, then it can't produce enough to support them, period.

[defendandprotect]

48. I think the r-w has worked very hard to confuse the public re SS...

especially re "baby boom" and "baby bust" ...

I think last I heard females are majority of workforce/? --

consider that difference from start up of SS when only males worked --

PLUS -- the aging of the population means less building of schools --

maybe more adults educating themselves in diverse ways-?

Smaller populations with less impact on environment -- fewer cars ..

Maybe smaller homes--??

What we are seeing happening belies reality --like the gas guzzling SUV --!!!

And MAC-homes --!!

Remember they need to confuse you with lying propaganda before they can

steal from you...!!!

[customerserviceguy]

55. Look, we can argue philosophy all day

and I find such discussions interesting and engaging, but the population boom of the postwar era is a well-documented phenomenon. The decline in the birthrate since it ended is also well documented.

The addition of women to the workforce is one of the things that has been shoring up the system, in the old days, "June" would get a Social Security payment based on what "Ward" made at work (even though nobody knows what he did, anyway. But I digress.) Today, if "Roseanne" makes less than half of what "Dan" makes, the money she has taken from her pay is meaningless, she will get the same benefit by claiming under "Dan's" work record rather than her own. That extra money has been shoring up the system for the last few decades. We don't have another group of people putting something in and getting nothing back from the system anymore. And undocumented workers have always been contributing and getting back nothing. As the economy contracts, they head back home and cease to do that.

I'm with you in foreseeing that we will have a lowered standard of living from the postwar years. But getting rid of SUVs and McMansions will not change the demographics involved here. We have some serious work to do on the numbers.

[Hannah Bell]

60. US GDP per capita in constant 2005 dollars:

1960: $15,640

2007: $43,267

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt

You're telling us that even though US workers produced $15K worth of goods & services (2005 $) for every person in the US & $43K worth (2005 $) in 2007, we can no longer afford to support our elders & must accept a lower standard of living.

You are full of it.

[GoesTo11]

49. That still means we have to come up with the money

The government will have to repay it by raising revenues through taxes anyway. The real problem is that social security taxes have been funding government activity for years, i.e., deficit spending has been even larger than commonly acknowledged. We have run up a huge debt, once you factor in social security. The government can deal with that debt by taxing, slashing all other government activities, inflating it away (which doesn't work for SS, due to indexing), or defaulting. Realistically, it will have to be some combination of those.

[Hannah Bell]

27. The "theft" was the Reagan-era hike on rates over what was needed to fund current retirees.

The purpose was to generate surplus revenues to plow into the general budget, to grease the skids for tax cuts to the upper brackets.

By terms of 1936 law, excess revenues *have* to be borrowed into the general fund - they don't/can't just sit in a safe deposit box. So the shysters (e.g. alan greenspan) who wrote the 80's rule change & the congress who passed it knew exactly what they were doing.

There was no "robbing" of the Trust Fund, & folks (like al gore) who promote this line do it to confuse people - very successfully.

The robbing was the tax hikes to generate surplus revenue, moving SS further from its original pay as you go design. 30 years of extra tax $$$$.

SS in its original design just taxes each generation of workers to support their elders, & so long as the US is producing real goods, that's a perfectly sound design.

[defendandprotect]

50. Right ...and SS remains in reports of general budget to hide the

horrific imbalance of Military Industrial Intelligence Complex vs domestic spending--!!

SS is not supposed to be in General Budget - it is paid for by citizens with
government merely administrating ... and costs have always been about 3% --
at least before Bush --

Bush wanted to raise bigger slush fund for his administration and decided to send IRS
out after the poor -- which would have done it--!!!

Stink from that suggestion was really bad -- so Greenspan came up with idea of increasing
FICA rate -- and that was done in Congress in middle of the night --!!!

That burden fell mainly on poor and middle class --
and was another blow to SS as growing "too expensive" .. only more lies/r-w propaganda--!!

But the poor and middle class have continued to pay for the increased surplus which
has been used for wars-- Bush I's Persian Gulf War, for one --
and Bush II's wars and tax cuts for wealthy--!!!

[defendandprotect]

18. There is a huge surplus which is constantly stolen ---

At least $100 Billion a year .. Bush's have been using for slush fund -- wars. etal --

[defendandprotect]

15. True ...

[daa]

8. We are not talking about Jobs,

we are talking about over-capacity. If people are buying only 12 million cars instead of 17 million, then why do we need enough workers to make 17 million?

If GM went out of business, Honda or Toyota or Kia would open another plant in THIS country to pick up the slack.

Chrysler got a loan once and saw they couldn't make and sold themselves to Daimler, who decided it wasn't a viable business, and sold it to Cerebus.

now you want to come along and bail our Cerebus, Dan Quayle, John Snow and Bob Nardelli?

My job went to India in 2001 and no one worried about my peak earning years, my paying taxes or social security, nothing. There are still FEWER jobs in IT than back then, so why should autos continue to be overstaffed?

[suston96]

9. Overcapacity? The big gas guzzlers that no one is buying?

Then maybe changes in the product to include gas economy or alternative fuels can be part of the loan guarantees demanded by Congress?

It's still about jobs. High unemployment is the single most virulent cancer on the economy of any country. Not to mention its destructive impact on the society itself.

[Donnachaidh]

44. then get the OIL companies to bail them out

How many times do we have to bail out failing companies like this? This isn't the first time they've come hat in hand. AND, this isn't the FIRST time they've been asked to put out economic cars. They were pushed on this in the 70's. Did they make good on the promises from way back then? NO.

I didn't hear all this yelling about JOBS when the production lines cranked out gas guzzler after gas guzzler that went out to dealerships and SAT THERE, because gas was 4 dollars a gallon. Didn't hear a PEEP out of the union when studies were being cited about how much damage these roadpigs you were cranking out was doing to the air. NOT ONE WORD from the unions to possibly get their bosses to start producing CLEAN engines and smaller cars, because perhaps the growing asthma rates among children might have something to do with emissions?

Which of these wonderous companies did everything in it's power to kill the electric car? And we're supposed to bail them out AGAIN?

If the unions are so worried about JOBS -- why don't THEY go to the government and offer to take over the old factories in Michigan, with federal monies, and re-tool and make a car company that WORKS, and produces non-polluting fuel efficient cars?

The big three are dinosaurs. They should be put down. All these union people are so worried about their jobs -- then do something that will WORK. Or would you rather the taxpayer coughs up money, the big three take it, and six months down the road threatens the same shit if the government doesn't PAY UP again. Or perhaps they do decide to cut and run and you're left with nothing, and the US taxpayers are screwed for throwing good money after bad, despite the track record of these companies.

Everyone else that is finding themselves jobless these days are being told to *think outside the box* when they have no jobs in the area to apply to.

It's time you folks start doing the same damned thing.

[dysfunctional press]

10. "Honda or Toyota or Kia would open another plant in THIS country to pick up the slack."

the problem with that is that the profits from the sales of the cars made in those plants wouldn't stay in THIS country.

people never seem to realize that aspect of the situation.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Then I guess we would have to decide

between sending profits overseas (which end up coming back to this country either as investment or sales of our goods) or continuing to do CPR on companies that cannot make sustainable profits to stay here.

Of course, if you really want to keep profits from going overseas, then you'd have to come up with a way to keep foreigners from investing in the US economy. Now that would be a plan for disaster.

[dysfunctional press]

30. "(which end up coming back to this country either as investment or sales of our goods) "...

hmmmm...if that's so true- then why is our trade defecit so enourmous, and getting bigger all the time? :shrug:

i vote for cpr on the u.s automakers.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Oil, mostly

and buying cheap poisonous crap from China. But even China invests in US Treasury bonds, they don't show up in the trade deficit figures, only sales of US goods.

Japanese and more recently, Korean automobiles have saved us far more on the trade deficits because of the reduced amount of foreign oil consumed over the lifetimes of the vehicles, especially when you allow for the fact that Asian automobiles last a LOT longer.

[Trajan]

32. In your world ...

There is no place for decent pay and compensation for hard work ....

IS that what you are saying ?

That NO US employees can expect high pay because we cannot compete with slave labor in Malaysia or some other similar place ?

If that is true: Then what is the point ?

If that is true: then the disaster has already arrived .....

[customerserviceguy]

37. There is a place for decent pay

but eventually things even out in the long run, as money can cross borders with a few keystrokes these days. We might not have automobile workers making the amounts of money they currently do, unless we are willing to dump in large amounts of money, and keep them functioning as zombie companies.

Japan did that for awhile in the 1990's. It might have turned out alright for them, but I'm not sure of that.

I don't begrudge the working people of this world a living. First of what I ask is that they not ship us poison. China has, Japan and Korea do not.

I think President Obama is all for the CPR. He obviously made helping the Big Three a key point of his first chat with Chimpy. Now, Shrub knows how to get back at him and his supporters. I expect nothing to be done to help Detroit until January. Maybe the new Congress can pass a bill that is ready for Obama to sign on Day 1 of his administration.

Hopefully, it will be the last one needed. But I doubt it.

[Trajan]

31. Um .... It is unemployment and UNDERemployment that is driving down demand ...

I cannot for a second believe that GM and Ford, which have existed in one form or another for nearly a century, could NOT retool and be successful sources of income and decent jobs for millions of workers to come ....

The problem is NOT GM, per se, but the rest of the economy that cannot pay for ANYTHING without greater income ....

High Paid workers at GM did NOT ruin the economy .... They helped it flourish ...

It is false to say that US workers did not complain about the movement of IT work to India: We complained mightily ... I know many BSCS's working in retail .....

Autoworkers formed the backbone of represented employees a long time ago .... One might say THEY fought the battles that made a Middle Class possible some 70 years ago .... I know you are angry, but it would be the height of cynicism to degrade them now because you lost your job to India ....

You can be sure UAW workers complained about IT work being offshored .....

BTW: I was never an autoworker ... But I did work in aerospace ..... I spent much money that helped other Americans make a living ..... That is how it works ....

[defendandprotect]

16. Jobs -- fine -- make them green -- build electric cars -- and made in USA

[defendandprotect]

17. "Guaranteed Loans" -- fine .. with change in management and HEAVY supervision ...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!