“Check this comparison out. Big 3 wages are in the $74+ and the other auto companies nearly half of that! You can't compete with those figures.”
That’s a false claim being made by Republicans to justify their actions. The New York Times debunks the claim that the Big Three auto workers earn $73 an hour. The real number, the truth, is a union worker earns about $55.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/t...1/do-auto-workers-really-earn-73-an-hour.aspx
Did you read the stupid article? Unbelievable how shamelessly liberals lie, or are unapologetically ignorant.
Here, let me repost exactly what the article says, because far from "debunking", it actually proves the whole point!
The article showed conclusively that Ford, which is in the best financial position, still pays it's workers $55/hr, which is at least $10/hr over the none Union Japanese workers.
HOWEVER, because of Union contracted legacy cost, it costs another $15 per hour over that... resulting in the universally known $70 dollar per hour mark. The Article did not debunk anything. It proved the exact point everyone has been making.
Oh and by the way, did you ever wonder why they choose to look at Ford, who is in the best shape, instead of comparing GM which is in the worst? Hint, it's called 'media basis'.
Next time read your own sources. You look plain stupid now. You are right up there with "Republicans vote against Mothersday" and Shamans Ann Coulter quotes.
The current automotive factory worker had nothing to do with running their companies either. To ask a factory worker who did not destroy the company to take a pay cut is meaningless. If you want a good product produced you do not force workers to take less money.
Absolute stupidity.... and amazingly contradictory to everything the other liberals have been saying. If you listened to the likes of Top Gun, you'd think that Honda produces the best most wonderful god sent machines on the planet, that Toyota was literally a holy manufacturer.
Yet here you claim if people are paid less they will produce crap? But wait... the sacred auto makers from the East, pay their people less. So how do you figure this?
One of the points the Republicans, including the Bush appointee, the Secretary of the Treasury, fought against in the Wall Street bailout bill were attempts to regulate CEO compensation at the failed institutions we're being asked to shell out our money to save. While logic might indicate that rewarding a CEO for failing doesn't make much sense, apparently it does to Republicans.
Whoa whoa whoa, you just said the other bailout didn't have any restrictions on CEOs, now it does, but the Republicans fought against it? Idiocy.
Here's a quote from the ranking Republican on the Senate banking committee:
Yes Pualson was against it, but Republicans were not.
I'd like to see Republicans attempt to justify this news item that was published Wednesday, October 1st on MSN's online financial section.
"Congress wants to crack down on CEO mega-salaries for banks participating in the bailout. And while politicians argue how best to do that, Alan Fishman of Washington Mutual (WaMu) is headed for the doors with $19 million in his pocket."
I have no interest in justifying it. I was against the Barack Bail-outs to begin with. Read this...
In other words, the republicans were against letting CEOs walk off with your tax money for more than democrats were. The conservative plan was to have a market based solution that left the risk and rewards, ultimately in the hands of private business. In other words, the CEOs, if they got any money, would be their own.
Instead, we went the democrap way of handing out your tax money to them, and they happily went off with it, while you gripe about some restrictions on pay. Oh well gee... that went well. The economy is still crappy, the CEOs are still walking off with $700 billion of our money, and you are still trying to blame republicans for your own stupidity. Is this Obama's 'hope and change' you kept telling us about?
"If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider this: Fishman started the job three weeks ago. I never saw the employment ad Fishman answered, but it must have read something like this:
WANTED: Top executive for train-wreck bank about to be seized by federal regulators. Must be able to look busy while FDIC sells business from under you. Previous experience with angry shareholders sitting on worthless stock a plus. Perks: $7.5 million hiring bonus and $11.6 million cash severance."
"Fishman got the best temp gig in history."
You just proved BigRob's point about Fishman not being the one who drove WaMu into the ground. That was his whole point, and you just provided the evidence you claimed he didn't have. Can't you see who ignorant this is?
But let's move on...
This is why Bailouts are bad. The CEO came into his office, successfully convinced some government air heads to give him money, and left with it.... and you want to blame Republicans which were opposed to the bailout to begin with? This is your 'hope and change'?
I'm convinced more and more, liberals are like ten-year-olds that refuse to accept responsibility for what they themselves did.
Now, Timmy, what did you do?
"It wasn't me! It was Bobby! He made me hit my sister!"
Hey... grow up you liberals. Time to own up for your mistakes.