533,000 jobs lost in November, with summer job losses adjusted down by another few hundred thousand.

Does anyone know what the NET job losses are under the 8 year Bush presidency, with these new and adjusted figures?

The old adage is that the money always goes to the top. Have we not heard, time and again, that if someone took all the money and distributed it all equally, soon some Will be richer than the others, and the rich will again be getting richer. Then why are we talking about a tax cut for the rich, but we are against helping the poor? The money spent, borrowed, distributed so far has not shown up in the economy and on the main street because what the government has done is to buy off the worthless papers from the ultra rich and hedge funds, and they in turn are not loaning it out again to the people with poor or no credit at all.

As the government anticipates another bailout, or a stimulus package, we should realize that that money will also end up with the rich, or overseas, if the marginal tax rates are not also increased, maybe even to the seventy and ninety percent range so that the money can be recycled through the economy again and again. If not, then the money will evaporate fast and the resulting benefits to the economy will be short lived.

I say do a deal with the devil(s). We bail out the financial companies, bail out the auto companies, bail out anything else that’s deemed “too large to be allowed to fail”. And get the oversight needed to insure we all benefit without putting the government in the business.

For that we get two things. National health care on a European model (which has an immediate impact on GM’s bottom line) and expansive mass transit subsidies on the scale of highway subdidies.

Think they’d buy into it?

Remember that Senator Shelby represents Alabama, a state with few jobs supporting Detroit, while it DOES have a lot of foreign car manufacturing (Mercedes Benz, BMW, Toyota).

Remember also that the Republicans want overall to break the unions. As with Global Warming, they are willing to do immense damage to the country to achieve their aims. [No one more intelligent — though misguided — than Robert Bork stated that the country needed a depression to take the money out of the hands of the workers so they would not pursue gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, atheism, etc. (“Slouching Toward Gomorrah”)

I read an article in the New York Times about the Big Three in which even some of the people who would be affected think there should be no bailout.

Give them a loan, they have to pay it back, they have to restructure and the top management must go.

They are going to fail anyway if these companies don’t get there act together. Some how I don’t see how they are going to change without the executives and the board being let go as well.

Great conversation.

The caller from Flint questioned the supposed high autoworker pay.

What does the average factory worker make at the “big three”?? Is the pay inline with other workers in similar industries?

At least with the big 3 bailout we would be supporting business that actually produce goods and add value to our economy. The financial bailout feels like giving money to people and businesses that just move money around and produce nothing.

The big 3 have been buying politicians to keep things the way they are (low cafe standards etc.) and ignoring the reality that fuel prices had to eventually go up and fuel efficient cars are necessary.

I just cannot see how they can catchup with Toyota and Honda in clean technology.

As I listen to the program this morning I’m surprized that the 2 billion or so a week for the on-going war (s) hasn’t been mentioned. We’re talking about the big 3 going under and how we must bail them out decause of their fiscal profligacy while alot of us don’t have -read can’t afford- health insurance for ourselves and families. The WAR and the greed associated with it has gotten us into this.

I was looking into train travel around the holidays, and as usual, it is booked way in advance. Is there any way the gov could fund more rail travel as a way to move to a greener economy, and contract with one or more of the auto manufacturers to build this, as a way to save the structures and the jobs. I do believe that we are better off as a society to save established structures rather than re-creating entire new companies that will eventually exhibit the same faults as the ones we see now.

Thank you,
Lorie

Is this a fear of bankruptcy or some blue color while color competition? The airlines went bankrupt after 911 and reorganized no bailouts there. The business models must change. This is a business problem and bailouts confront the principals of our capitalistic system.

I hear a lot about these organizations financial or automotive being to big to fail. I do not hear anything about the solution of making them samaller. If there are divisions that are viable and have a reasonable business plan to be profitable, then spin off that division as a stand alone. Even now we are talking about making the big three the big two or the big one. Bigger is not always better. Why not have the little 10 with Jeep, Pontiac etc being independant and some just being gone. Same with the Banks if they have divisions that have there act together make them independant if not let them die or let the government deal with the divisions that are not functionsing well.

This is an opportunity to clean house and redirect the way transportation is done in this country. Cars are a part of it..but so are light rail and high speed trains. Retool the manufacturing base and get some lean, mean and hungry new automobile developers. Let’s use the “leverage” of this crisis for the public and planet’s good.
robert

Alexis is rightly worried about the impact of huge current deficits on future generations. But what about history, and the potential future impacts of NOT spending because of deficit fear? Ask Ben Bernanke–the failure of the U.S. government to spend when spending was needed was a major reason the crash of ‘29 turned into the Great Depression. The current administration is a collection of deeply reluctant Keynesians…but Keynesians nonetheless. If they think it’s necessary, then it probably won’t be much of a stretch for a Democratic administration to make the same case. And they will probably structure such an approach more competently.

How about bailing out the auto industry with oil company excess profits? Institute the windfall profits tax on oil companies and use that money to bail out the auto makers but not before decapitating them and reorganizing them and reading their management the riot act about building green cars.

In other news, I just got an email from Joe Biden (Obama campaign) asking me to donate money to pay off Hillary’s campaign debt. I resent having to bail out Hillary which is really paying Mark Penn’s outstanding bill. Mark Penn is a slime bucket and I refuse to pay his bill. I’m done giving Obama money now, no matter what Jack says about Hillary’s star power in the world.

“In other news, I just got an email from Joe Biden (Obama campaign) asking me to donate money to pay off Hillary’s campaign debt. I resent having to bail out Hillary which is really paying Mark Penn’s outstanding bill. Mark Penn is a slime bucket and I refuse to pay his bill. I’m done giving Obama money now, no matter what Jack says about Hillary’s star power in the world.”

The nerve of these people. I’m glad Obama is going to be president. However I am pretty disappointed on the whole lot in Washington. They are all out for their own interest.

Let Bill pay the bill with all the millions he has made with his speeches.

“I say do a deal with the devil(s). We bail out the financial companies, bail out the auto companies, bail out anything else that’s deemed “too large to be allowed to fail”. … For that we get two things. National health care on a European model (which has an immediate impact on GM’s bottom line) and expansive mass transit subsidies on the scale of highway subdidies.

Think they’d buy into it?”

I think they will get their bailouts whether we want it or not. They don’t have to give you anything for it. That’s the system this country has. You pay 25-30% of your paycheck and in exchange you get nothing. Just the privilege to have a free market system where everybody is too big to fail and holds your money hostage.

Did you hear how the guy named Bert from Vermont called in and asked, ” Why should we bail out the big 3 when no one cares to help the many small businesses going under? ”
Then Jack Beatty said “There’s a double standard if we bail out white collar bankers but not blue collar workers in Detroit.” However, I don’t recall anyone saying that we were going to bail out the banks because a small business owner in Vermont named Bert thinks we should.
This is how the people who back up the exploiters pin things on others.
I would favor letting the big 3 scuffle and regroup, or file for bankruptcy, which is not the end of their existence, but a new phase.
Bailing out this industry is a poor investment because they have proven that they are against alternative energy, conservation, and common sense. And the auto worker’s union are no angels either.
Time to move on!

I listened to the Fox News woman say that somehow Bush should get credit for not suffering a 2nd attack on US soil. What????

The US did not have an attack on its soil for almost 200 years. That first attack happened under the Bush administration and he should get credit for not suffering 2 attacks???

“The US did not have an attack on its soil for almost 200 years. That first attack happened under the Bush administration and he should get credit for not suffering 2 attacks???”

Well, to be fair this was not the first attack. The first one by middle eastern terrorists was in 1993. It was also an attempt on the WTC. That said I agree with your point. How is Bush’s record in that respect any better than Clinton’s or any other American president? I look at it this way:

1. There was an attack on American soil by middle eastern terrorists at the beginning of Clinton administration and there there was one at the beginning of Bush administration.

2. There was no more attacks on American soil by middle eastern terrorists for the remainder of Clinton administration and there was no more attacks on American soil for the remainder of Bush administration.

3. Abroad, there were a number of attacks against American interests by middle eastern terrorists during Clinton administration and during Bush administration. I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but I bet many more Americans died during Bush’s years than during Clinton’s.

4. Clinton failed to get Bin Laden and Bush has so far failed to get Bin Laden.

I really don’t see what so great is about Bush’s record. If anything, his policies have led to increased hate towards America, while incidents of high profile terrorism in the world have increased dramatically.

If you take “American soil” to be the sovereign property of the USA, then according to international law and other conventions, there have been many attacks on American soil in the past 200 or so years.

Still, I’m not sure whether the president can claim to have prevented any terrorist attacks here–but he has intervened terrifically in several countries that are not American soil.

For a damning though now dated view of American intervention, see the appendix in William Appleman Williams “Empire as a Way of Life”–you might remember Williams as he was featured in a special Nation on the eve of the 1980 Dem convention.

I meant attacks by middle eastern terrorists. I did not mean Pearl Harbor or the war of 1812 .

Also, Bush leaves the world with substantially more emboldened Iran and Russia. Both are itching to do something bad to American interests. He leaves N. Korea with the deal similar to that achieved by Clinton. I don’t know if he has made progress towards the solution of any major international problem. He did depose Taliban and Saddam. With Tailban, I’d say good job for the US military. I don’t see much of a policy there on the part of the decider. With Saddam – same thing. Great job by the US military and a complete lack of strategy, exit or otherwise. Bush did demonstrate strong will and stubborn determination. If they had been put to good use imagine how much he could have achieved with the 90% approval after 9/11. It is a shame so much time, good will and resources went to waste.

When John Maynard Keynes name was brought up I half-expected the Fox anchor to say “Well, I just talked to Keynes last night…”

First of all, Jack had no insight as usual to add to this week’s economic events. Falling back to the same class warfare (white vs blue-collar) rhetoric is of no value.

Secondly, Jay Leno stopped being funny about 17 years ago. When you’re going for the mandatory Bush joke, work a little harder On Point.

Iran and Russia’s power came from high oil prices, they will be in retreat if it stays at $40. As financial instability goes global, the US is becoming the safe haven once again. Funny how you find out who your friends really are in a crisis.