Decision 2006

[Jim Becker]

Actually, there was a budget surplus in 1999, just before the new guys got in and gave big tax cuts to their rich buddies.

Any perceived budget surplus was only due to a manipulation of figures....a true budget surplus cannot occur until our national debt is actually paid off completely......Looking at the pie chart on the back of your income tax booklet (or wherever they put it these days) will show you that.

A balanced budget means income is equal to expenditures. Paying back the entire national debt may be a nice goal, but the first step in that direction is to quit borrowing more money. That is what "balanced budget" means and if we each invent our own definitions of common terms, it isn't possible to have any meaningful discussion.

But yes, I don't think the Bush administration has made any significant inroads towards solving any of the fiduciary ills of our government. Since that is what you appear to be trying to say here, Jim..

To be more clear, they have done a lot more damage. Their idea to send everybody $100 when fuel was going up was such absurd pandering that even the most economically challenged commentators were able to see through it.

I'm also not terribly happy with the Iraq situation.

You are putting that mildly compared to my opinion.

I would be hard pressed, however, to suggest a superior alternative in either case.

Which illustrates how much easier it is to get into a big mess than to get out of one. Look at it this way, it is highly unlikely that any alternative you come up with would be worse than what is being done now.

The only thing I do give Bush Kudos for, is in the most unlikely of places......the environment.......particularly alternative energy development.

But, since we all seem to have a "pet issue" these days, and that one happens to be mine, I suppose I'd have to say that I'm happy with the administration overall........

Some of his buddies probably have their hooks into alternative energy, just like they do with Halliburton (The only entity that Iraq seems to be working for).

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

A balanced budget means income is equal to expenditures. Paying back the entire national debt may be a nice goal, but the first step in that direction is to quit borrowing more money. That is what "balanced budget" means and if we each invent our own definitions of common terms, it isn't possible to have any meaningful discussion.

Jim....

The budget is worded in such a way as to say....."Balance (surplus), if any, to be paid towards principal of debt" at the end of each line item....

a "budget surplus"...hence.....should never occur......

I'm not trying to redefine simple terms, Jim......I'm trying to establish actual use in the modern context........

[Harold R]

That is what "balanced budget" means and if we each invent our own definitions of common terms, it isn't possible to have any meaningful discussion.

Not to say that I'm clairvoyant, but, several posts ago.........

I have tons of opinions and enough commentary floating around between my ears to tie up bandwidth for years. However, unless I can back it up with facts and not have to change the course of history to make it sound good, they'll never see the light of day.

[Jack fowler]

I hope this is appropriate to post here. If its not, my request for forgiveness.

I was told by a wise person one time; “Believe nothing what you hear and half of what you see”. If you have read anything I’ve wrote in the past, you would have noticed; how much I dislike paying taxes because of the corruption and extortion to the America taxpayer for payments of political favors.

Tonight I downloaded a movie and viewed that was talked about at lunch today . The name of the movie is Iraq for Sale. I’m in a Hotel room with a laptop and I really don’t know what the connection speed is, but it downloaded fairly quickly. The DVD just came out if you want to rent it. Do you really think this stuff is happening?

Iraq for Sale is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war. Director Robert Greenwald takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155

[Hengy]

I know, I know... Everyone thought that this thread was dead, but I couldn't sit and watch...I have been away from the computer for a couple of days, and this thread really "blossomed"

I know that this is an unpopular opinion, but here goes. I am ALL FOR a livable wage and for someone getting paid what their job is worth. Yes, I am for a FAIR minimum wage. That being said, perhaps it is time that we as a nation of workers buck up and understand that the days of $28.00 per hour and up are DEAD. We are in the midst of a shift in pay that is necessary if we are to compete with cheap crap goods from other countries. Be absolutely honest with yourself... The job of assembling a car or wiring a motor starter, or any other similar job in a manufacturing plant are skilled labor to be sure, but what IS the true price of that skill?

Yes, the CEO's and stockholders of US companies are getting fat on the backs of the laborers and all that, but even if you take half or better of the CEO salaries, there is still MUCH more money being spent on the workers' salaries and benefits. Many who are in unions and the like have gotten automatic "cost of living" increases each and every year regardless of merit. These increases were far higher than the true "Cost of Living" all the while. We have quite simply "priced ourselves out of the market" with our own wages.

All the while, we have become "bargain-shoppers" who "gotta have it now" and require manufacturers to continually cut costs. What are they supposed to do? They cannot afford to continue to pay the wages that are required by the annual increases, so they have to look to other means to provide the "cheap" product to the US consumer...

How do we reverse this? I don't know for sure, but there has to be some sort of relief for the wages that are being charged by the plant worker...

Again, I know that many of you on this board are plant workers and manufacturers, and I do not mean to offend any single one of you... This is just my opinion...

Mike in La Crosse, WI

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Well said Mike,

It is not just your opinion, but mine as well.........

I watched firsthand as the Steelworkers Union broke the back of Bethlehem Steel, and the workers laughed about it.......The most senior ones thought it was hysterical!!!!

I took a tour of the plant in the waning days, when the tour-guide spoke about things like "planned obsolescence" due to an unapproachable labor base.

My Mom's brother was the 5th from last Union worker to leave the plant...as it closed...when he died last year, he was worth over $5 million. Now, some of that came from the high-interest rates during the 1980's, but, for the most part, he was simply cheap and greedy....taking all the hours he could, as his seniority let him "bump" anyone else on any other shift.....for double and triple time pay........ Tell me, truthfully....what craneman is worth $500 K ????? The union did that for him, and I guess I'm happy for him and his family, but it amounted to the rape of a good, and important employer here in Eastern PA......

There are successful manufacturing facilities in my area...they are usually small, employing less than 200 persons. They all pay less than $15/hr. That is the way things must be if any manufacturing is to go on in this country.....not minimum wage, but the days of $28/hr for assembly line labor is gone. Most of these places start entry-level management (B.A. Business) at $25K.....so how are they going to pay production workers $30-40 K??

[Harold R]

I disagree somewhat with these hourly figures tossed about as being the demise of manufactoring. I think you must look at the the whole compensation package. What really opened my eyes, during our last round of contract negotiations, the company said they needed x amount of cost savings from labor. They proposed switching from a defined benefit retirement package, to a defined compensation package. Mega savings there. They changed health care programs to a different provider and saved millions there. Sick leave accural,and usage were revamped to the point where you must come to work to get payed. Our actual hourly rates were pretty much left intact. With some tweaking from the union, our productivity rose, profit-sharing was added, and within six months the company returned to profitability. Even though our hourly payrates have been frozen for 3 years, the profit sharing for 2006 will fund about a 10% pay raise.
Another point to remember, these back-breaking contracts you speak of.....are reveiwed by shareholders.....BOD's.....and signed by the company management. Yes, they had a choice, and yes, I'm familiar with the Railway Labor Act.

[Little Indy]

There are other ways of organizing a firm besides propriatorships, partnerships and corporations. What if the the workers are also the stockholders. I mean all of them. Cooperative do have a bad reputation in this country, Some fail because they are successful others fail because they don't make enough money and go bankrupt. Usually when they have a positive earning growth, new workers can not afford to buy out old workers, The Amanda Corporation started out as a cooperative and failed because it made money and for the older workers to cash out they had to become a corporation . The Browns wrote a nice book on the subject many years ago. Other times the fail because everyone wants to be a chief nobody wants to be an Indian. However there has been a wildly successful model for worker cooperatives. Mondragon Societies (the Mountain of the Dragon) named for a town in north central Spain where they started. Making Mondragon by the Whythes explains in English how they work and their history. There the workers elect the firm's directors who chose upper level management. To work there you have to buy your way in. (One year's wages). The firm or bank will loan you the money. In a 500 man firm there are about 9-10 directors. The workers also elect a social committee (in 500 man firm about 50) that decides wage level, safe issues, charity (firms have to contribute to charity a percentage of positive earnings; scholarships to children of workers qualifies). The highest paid worker can not make more than 6 times the lowest paid worker. All entrepreneurial profits are divided equally among all workers. When a worker leaves the society the society buys him out. These started in the 1950's and when workers are leaving they have huge retirement checks waiting. There is also an audit committee (three in a 500 man firm and can not be part of senior management). When an outside firm competes it competes not just against management but against every worker in the society. They make on the average 6% more in positive earnings than their competition. No huge salaries for senior management. The workers and the stock holders are the same. If they come to the US I bet they will be knocking off the competition. They fail to make money about 5% of the time. Look the the bankrupt rate here in the US.

Richard

This does not adequately explain them. Socialists don't like them because they make workers managers and the managers of corporations don't like them because they make managers workers. If nobody likes them they must be doing something right. Don't you think?

[Little Indy]

They proposed switching from a defined benefit retirement package, to a defined compensation package. Mega savings there.

Does not have to be a bad deal for the workers? I do suggest that the workers accounts be where management can not ever get their hands on them.
Assume a person goes to work at 16 and retires at 65. Assume $1000 is put in his account annually. Assume he get the average that the NYSE has grown since it started. How much is there at age 65 $1.5M. Now for the average worker at first it might be $1K but that usually is much more.

Richard

[Harold R]

Does not have to be a bad deal for the workers? I do suggest that the workers accounts be where management can not ever get their hands on them.
Assume a person goes to work at 16 and retires at 65. Assume $1000 is put in his account annually. Assume he get the average that the NYSE has grown since it started. How much is there at age 65 $1.5M. Now for the average worker at first it might be $1K but that usually is much more.

Exactly.....it's been a good deal for us. The old plan...called "A" plan was frozen. The new plan..called "B" plan is 10% of W2 for the first few years of the contract...ramps up to 12.75% of W2 the last couple of years.....only to be negotiated again for the next contract. That money is put in the employees private investment account every quarter. You control how it's invested. I've been in the B plan now for 18months....and I'm very satisfied. We have some very sharp people running our company. They've made out pretty well too. LOL $$$$$$$