Uh oh…Habba has been caught lying to the judge again, this time claiming she had a high fever and likely covid to get a delay in the current trial, then instead of going home after leaving court she went with Trump campaigning and doing press events for the next 3 days….caught by a massive MAGgot and Jan 6 attacker who took a friendly picture with her and was thrown out of the Trump event without explanation. That photo has now gone public and exposed her lies to the judge. Really dumb to lie to the judge before trial ends….that’s Trump.
Bonus- The UAW president torched Trump during the union’s public endorsement of Biden, reminding everyone how Biden came to the picket lines with the UAW and supported blue collar working Americans while Trump went to a non union shop, hired actors to pretend to be union workers, and trashed the union in his speeches. He’s lost young voters, women, minorities, and union workers, never had educated professionals…who’s left? Uneducated unemployed racist white guys…your people. Probably why he’s saying he intends to give MORE tax cuts to corporations and the .001% but not to average Americans, their taxes will go up again. BTW, those massive deficit exploding tax cuts not only didn’t pay for themselves at all nor did they raise the GDP, they crashed the economy to near depression and the debt skyrocketed faster than ever before.
And Gaetz’s sex trafficking investigation is ramping up, talking to the girls and young women he bragged about sleeping with after paying and shipping them across the country for sex. Where is Greene’s outrage? Completely absent, because it’s all fake outrage.

Yep, change happened in the Auto Industry:

"As part of the 2009 restructuring of GM, the Obama administration insisted that “innovative labor agreements” be put in place at factories building small cars. The UAW pushed through, without a vote by local union members, a provision that allowed 40 percent of the workers at Lake Orion to be paid tier-two wages. The deal also opened the door to hundreds of even lower paid contractors."

Just how much are those tier two and three wages? I hear you ask.

"Not only has the UAW sanctioned second-tier wages of $16 to $19 an hour—little more than half of what traditional workers earn. It has also opened the door to a third tier of contract workers who earn as little as $9 an hour, with no medical or retirement benefits."

and

"In the present situation, however, rather than defending workers, the UAW is functioning as a cheap labor contractor. So thoroughly has the UAW reduced wages that American automakers are now boasting they can produce cars as profitably in the US as in Mexico, China or other low-wage countries."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/linc-d14.shtml

Depression averted: To an extent this is true, however it was averted without fixing the mechanisms by which it happened in the first place, and America is on the path to bankruptcy at the rate it is accumulating debt. In the short term you can fix just about any economic problem you want by printing and borrowing money, but in the long term you need to have a way of repaying your debt, I'm not aware of such a plan.

Iraq war ended: His promise was that ending the Iraq war would be the first thing he would do as president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g
And while the official war is now over, the US of A has an embassy in Iraq the size of the Vatican city, costing ~$3.8 billion this year (the most expensive in the world) and they still have around 16,000 people involved in the 'diplomatic effort', the majority of which are private security contractors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/#.TytXO1z9PUc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-usa-diplomats-idUSTRE7BH04B20111218

Looking at the bigger picture, the total defense budget, magically, despite the 'end of the Iraq war' is going to remain at similar levels, with projected spending of just under $700 billion for the next 4 years. This is of course because while you shrink your Iraq footprint, you increase it in other areas such as the Asia-Pacific.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1103bm47s1.pdf

This also doesn't take into account the spending that makes it's way to the military through other channels such as emergency funds, special projects etc. In fact more than half of every tax dollar is currently going towards military expenditure according to this:
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going-to-the-military

Bin Laden dead: apparently, not really worthwhile debating this as afaik there is no proof he's been killed and no proof he wasn't.

Same sex marriage: The DADT repeal was a good change, however at the Federal level same-sex marriage is still not recognized, not that I can criticize this, it's the same in Australia.

Anyway, that's my 2c, as usual, feel free to criticize.

@shinyblurry MY TURN TO USE MYTHS!

ok ok ok ok ok soooo One of us cares about something that is all powerful, can see into the future to know everything, and cares about making everyone think the same way we do, and one of us doesn't-



I will do what i must...*sparks lightsaber*

i used to like john stossel . a long long time ago before he went all fake news . they are using uaw political donations to show this union is wielding undue influence , after giving them a bad lead in to point the finger .
i knew there was a reason i quit listening to him , he went from skeptic to right wing assassin .

I don't think that the union will hold on to it's stake. Honestly, it's not really in the union's best interests to own, even in part, the one company, when the union operates in a bunch of other companies. The cash value is more valuable to the union than the ownership.

But I have to agree with the points Moore makes in the last portion of the interview, where he cites GM's WW2 plant conversions. We have the technology to make better, smarter, more efficient vehicles. This is a prime opportunity to change the GM, and by extension, the entire world, for the better. Maybe the UAW should give their ownership of GM to Neil Young.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ Steele was basically saying that the stimulus is creating short-term "work" rather than long-term "jobs", and that doing so doesn't help the economy. Disagreeing with that point would be fine, and I would have loved for her to do so. Steele has plenty of opinions that would be easy to pick apart.
But Maddow did not attack the point, she attacked the wording.

Actually, she attacked the point. A job that pays you income is an economic stimulus. A full-time job that lasts for 2 years puts food on your family's table for that much longer. A job you get a paycheck for is a job, period.

It's not permanent demand in the system for employment, but the idea is that employing those people creates demand that spreads (or trickles) through the economy, encouraging more hiring throughout, and builds the confidence of investors who start believing that there are good bets to be made on our economy because sectors of the economy start improving.

It might not work out that way, but these histrionics about refusing to concede that jobs are being created by the stimulus bill are disingenuous.

She extended his wording to imply the he was saying that short-term work doesn't help those employed by it and that any job with an end-date is the same as being unemployed. She avoided his point to attack his wording, and she does not do the same with Democrats.

Yes, over time you can say Rachel exhibits a bias towards criticizing Republicans. It doesn't mean a particular instance of that criticism is biased and unfair, because she does it too often.

A lot of time what she says highlights my own confusion with Republicans, and why they think their ideas will work. Usually I understand what they're trying to convey, but with Steele, I had no fucking idea what his point was.

I think he was trying to echo the Keynesian quote about digging holes to fill them up again, but he'd have done better to actually use the quote (which is clear), than just try to make a semantic argument about whether jobs created to service government contracts are "jobs" or not.

To me, that argument is an attempt to assume your conclusion; the government can't create jobs because jobs created by government aren't jobs because government created them.

She did the same with the auto bailout. Some Republican Senator said that union jobs "cost the auto companies an average of ~$75/hour" (paraphrased) and Maddow said "show me the auto worker that takes home $75/hour." Workers cost companies more than their hourly wage and she knows that.

And so do the Republicans, yet they repeatedly phrased this data point as "Union workers are paid $75/hour" -- there wasn't just one, it was all of them, repeatedly. She was calling them out for trying to fudge facts to fit their political need, and explained how the $75/hour figure was reached in excruciating detail in order to try to counteract those misrepresentations being pushed by Republicans.

Maddow is too intelligent for me to believe she doesn't know the difference in these cases.

The reason you have that impression is because she's been explaining the difference between the words people are actually using, and the facts.

Yes, Olbermann and O'Reilly are worse, but that doesn't mean Maddow is completely fair when she is talking about Republicans. She often avoids disagreeing with what people mean so she can take a funny jab at their word choice. If she did it to both sides then maybe I'd call it unbiased, but I've only seen her do it to Republicans.

Why is it her job to try to divine a sensible explanation for people's ridiculous words that they themselves did not put forward? Steele's case and the $75/hour UAW thing are great examples; the Republicans put out these talking points, and don't try to explain a "real meaning" they just try to put out a soundbite for the uneducated and hope they don't have to defend it against any real scrutiny, because they have spent decades decrying such scrutiny as "bias".

When one party has been saying stupid things, it's not "bias" to report that what they're saying is more stupid than the things the other party is saying. Bias is trying to claim that the only objective report is the one that finds both parties equally wrong.

Is that why there's a waiting list for Smart Fortwos? They can't keep up with the demand for them, even if the US model is half as efficient as the European model.

The reason there is a waiting list is because the UAW won't allow that kind of car to be built, and because Diesel engines do not meet US cafe standards. Funny isn't it? Diesel is the most efficient fuel for cars, but we can't use it in the US except in big trucks. Maybe our problem isn't the car companies. Maybe our problem is an asinine Congress.

Anyway - some facts about 'green' cars in the US...

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/06/04/088884.html
http://blogs.internetautoguide.com/6271445/industry-news/best-selling-cars-in-2008/index.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/us-sales-of-hyb.html
http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=680&Itemid=45

As of August 2008, only about 26,000 TOTAL 'hybrid' cars (all brands, makes, models) were sold in the U.S. as compared to the bottom of the top 10 list (Nissan Sentra) which sold 59,000 units. So the #10 car in America more than DOUBLED the sales of all hybrid cars. That's in a year where gas prices were kicking consumers in the crotch.

http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=680&Itemid=45

European style cars don't sell in the US for many reasons. One - diesel. Two - UAW objections. Three - theyr'e TINY and Americans hate tiny, cramped cars. The market reality is that very few Americans will ever walk into a showroom and buy a tiny Eurocar when they have better options.

But I do think there's a lot of improvement to be had in efficiency, maybe not so extreme.

I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

The 'efficient car' crowd far too often ignores the basic realities of the market. Most people in the US need an affordable car (sub-$20,000) that can carry thier families, handle long commutes, deal with adverse weather, and can haul light cargo. 'High efficiency' cars ONLY WORK when you use extremely expensive materials, travel very short distances, have no cargo, have no passengers, and always travel in perfect conditions. The SECOND you start trying to design a car that can cope with these basic, fundamental, CRITICAL market needs you have just had to throw 'super efficient' out the window.

It's not like car companies have put much effort into efficiency.

I disagree. They put a LOT of thought into efficency. But they aren't miracle workers. They can't wave a wand and make thier cars weigh 2,000 fewer pounds while still meeting cafe standards, safety regulations, and UAW working requirements. The first US car company that tried to sell one of those tinker toy 'Euro' style cars would get creamed in the marketplace.

>> ^Trancecoach:
$28.00 / hr with benefits? Where do I sign up?


Yeah, seriously. That's more than most college graduates make.

The UAW guy in the video admits to making $47 an hour with benefits. That's like 100k a year. That's more than double what it takes to live very comfortably in detroit. That's more than 5 times what grad students make, including benefits.

Hanns said: "If the average currently productive worker (read: not a retiree or whatever) is earning any more money than the labor market would normally support at a non unionized plant, then they are at a competitive disadvantage."


That's where you and most everyone else is wrong.

The current UAW contract that is to expire in two years, clearly outlines that UAW workers earn about 3 to 4 dollars and hour more than those who work at foreign plants.

The UAW has already stated, time and fucking time again, that they will go lower once the current contract expires. They will go lower than the wages at those foreign plants.


I'm not even getting in to the rest of your talking points, because you've started out 100% wrong, and either you're not researching any of this or you're lying to prove a point. I'm guessing you haven't done the research.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Are these the "objective journalists" liberalsifters crave after weathering those biased talking heads at FOX?


No.

>> ^fujiJuice:
Now, I certainly don't think it's a good thing people will lose their jobs, that is never a good thing, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers should be responsible.

There, simple.

Government shouldn't be responsible. Not government should do X instead, or government should take Y precautions to prevent getting screwed, or demand Z in return for assistance.

Makes choices easy, doesn't it?

Bonus is that the same philosophy says you don't have to feel personally responsible for trying to tackle the issue in any way.

>> ^rychan:
I'm a Ph.D. research student, basically a professional scientist, and I get paid about $25,000 a year. Zero benefits. No health care, no maternity leave, no retirement, nothing. If I'm lucky I'll be compensated as much as a UAW assembly line worker when I graduate after 10 years of impoverished higher education.


La dee freeekin daaaa...

First, being a grad student is a choice, no one is forcing you to get a Ph.D.

It is also against the law for a University to not provide health for graduate students. By federal regulation, you are technically an employee of the state, and discounted rates are made available for you to purchase. They are not included in your stipend because many students are still covered by their parents or are covered by their sposes. You can receive health care benefits by paying a small monthly or large yearly fee for benefits, just like any other employee. I recommend you ask the graduate student secretary.

Moreover, if and when you do graduate you will be making upwards of 70K. In physics the number is around 90K, biology it is a little less. In 3-5 year you could make as much as 100-200K. This is in industry of course. So you are trading short term income for long term higher wages. Think of it as an investment in your future.

Grad student stipends vary from 20K to 30K. But I agree that if the US wants to stay competitive in the global market we should be giving State Universities and National Labs federal funding to attract both better talent and stimulate the economy.

Start studying for that qualifier... it is gonna be a bitch.

>> ^rychan:
The New York Times article was correct and straightforward. Olbermann is wrong. Olbermann claims the NYT claimed $73/hour wages. They never did. They correctly said $73 was the average compensation per worker, and Olbermann doesn't refute that. These gigantic health and pension and survivor benefits should rightfully be included in the compensation.
I'm a Ph.D. research student, basically a professional scientist, and I get paid about $25,000 a year. Zero benefits. No health care, no maternity leave, no retirement, nothing. If I'm lucky I'll be compensated as much as a UAW assembly line worker when I graduate after 10 years of impoverished higher education.


Sounds like you picked the wrong degree.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'richaed shelby, uaw, union, auto bailout' to 'richard shelby, uaw, union, auto bailout' - edited by silvercord