Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Fairness Doctrine

  1. #1
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97

    Fairness Doctrine

    I think its time that a discussion of the outright lies that eminate from GOP Talk Radio is begun. GOP Talk Radio has gone beyond being some sort of entertainment phenom and has evolved into a political organization in it's right, that spreads the spectrum from local political operatives to national political operative "hosts".

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200811060005?f=h_latest

    These haters and liars have had a profound, and largely negative impact on our electoral process. It is no accident that 23% of Texas thinks Barack is a Muslim. They spent the entire campaign pushing that and other crap, and like Limbaugh in the opening example, routinely trot out the most base lies and dress them up as truth, which is then disseminated to the rest of our media and to the Internet.

    Myself, I think it is time to return to the Fairness Doctrine. If these hacks had provided factual information to support their views in a thoughtful way, I would not think it was necessary, but they do not. They spew a stream of lies. Yesterday I heard Houston local radio fascist, Pat Gray say that Obama "advocated a global tax" and that the "UN has been against the United States since it was founded", both bare faced and ridiculous lies. If they are going to persist in it, we need a method where the lies can be refuted immediately on the same media, so our elections can be over issues instead of the wasting of immense time refuting morons who push ridiculous lies like this:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040019?f=h_latest
    Last edited by concretist; 11 November 2008 at 08:26 PM.
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  2. #2
    Feisty Ol' Coot hamiltonpl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lakewood
    Posts
    2,038
    I think right-wing talk show hosts are crazy. But I don't think the government should ever control the content of a person's speech. I'm against the fairness doctrine.
    DAGNABBIT!

  3. #3
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

    Any questions?

  4. #4
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    On the one hand I for one hope Limbaugh and Hannity continue to become more acerbic, more vitriolic, and more outrageous in their rants against Obama. It will become repellent to all but the most bigoted and idiotic among us, making the real bozos of whom we should be afraid, very easy to spot. On the other hand I havenít forgotten that more than half of American voters chose to retain a mass-murderer in the WH in '04. I donít have as much faith that the "most bigoted and idiotic among us" are actually a minority...

    I donít want to go Clockwork Orange on people and force feed a message. After all, the only thing worse than propaganda is govít propaganda. But, The public owns the airwaves, not the broadcasters. The public has a right to hear all sides of the issues, especially given the level of outright lies emanating from the right wing on the broadcast spectrum. If you want a monopoly on opinion, that can easily be done by setting up a cable station, which is the true "private enterprise" most long for. But the broadcast spectrum is public property and one must obtain a license to use it from the government. It's about time the license required truth and balance.

    What Limbaugh and Hannity are doing is not that different than other illegal activities, like inciting to riot, or to commit hate crimes. I am not really sure he has a right to disseminate his depraved ideas over the public's radio bandwidth as the bulk of his message is really not something for kids to hear. Kind of like Howard Stern is "pay for the privilege to hear his voice and ideas" because it is deemed inappropriate for public airing, so is Rush. Hate and polarization are far worse than toilet humor for a kid to hear.

    Right wing hate radio is essentially using public property, the airwaves, to get out one side of the argument. I have no problem with his right to disseminate bullshit, what I do have a problem with is the fact corporate America has figured out a way to propagandize the public. I travel all over the US, and I can fly out of one city, land in another 1,000 miles away, and find that the local AM radio fascist is talking about the same exact thing, pushing the same exact disinformation, which is spun exactly as the guy I was listening too a few hours ago in Houston was spinning it. This is not opinion, it is an organized operation with a goal of presenting one viewpoint only. We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine on the broadcast spectrum to remedy this crap.
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  5. #5
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjz
    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

    Any questions?
    You can't incite a riot or yell fire in a theatre.


    Any questions?
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  6. #6
    Mid-Rise Member JSteffen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas, United States
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    On the one hand I for one hope Limbaugh and Hannity continue to become more acerbic, more vitriolic, and more outrageous in their rants against Obama. It will become repellent to all but the most bigoted and idiotic among us, making the real bozos of whom we should be afraid, very easy to spot. On the other hand I havenít forgotten that more than half of American voters chose to retain a mass-murderer in the WH in '04. I donít have as much faith that the "most bigoted and idiotic among us" are actually a minority...

    I donít want to go Clockwork Orange on people and force feed a message. After all, the only thing worse than propaganda is govít propaganda. But, The public owns the airwaves, not the broadcasters. The public has a right to hear all sides of the issues, especially given the level of outright lies emanating from the right wing on the broadcast spectrum. If you want a monopoly on opinion, that can easily be done by setting up a cable station, which is the true "private enterprise" most long for. But the broadcast spectrum is public property and one must obtain a license to use it from the government. It's about time the license required truth and balance.

    What Limbaugh and Hannity are doing is not that different than other illegal activities, like inciting to riot, or to commit hate crimes. I am not really sure he has a right to disseminate his depraved ideas over the public's radio bandwidth as the bulk of his message is really not something for kids to hear. Kind of like Howard Stern is "pay for the privilege to hear his voice and ideas" because it is deemed inappropriate for public airing, so is Rush. Hate and polarization are far worse than toilet humor for a kid to hear.

    Right wing hate radio is essentially using public property, the airwaves, to get out one side of the argument. I have no problem with his right to disseminate bullshit, what I do have a problem with is the fact corporate America has figured out a way to propagandize the public. I travel all over the US, and I can fly out of one city, land in another 1,000 miles away, and find that the local AM radio fascist is talking about the same exact thing, pushing the same exact disinformation, which is spun exactly as the guy I was listening too a few hours ago in Houston was spinning it. This is not opinion, it is an organized operation with a goal of presenting one viewpoint only. We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine on the broadcast spectrum to remedy this crap.
    Who are you to decide what is propaganda and what is not. I for one NEVER want a government to have that power. Be smart and decide things for yourself.

  7. #7
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    You can't incite a riot or yell fire in a theatre.
    That is correct, the First Amendment is not absolute. Can you tell me which exception allows the government to censor AM radio? Is Hannity inciting a riot? Is Limbaugh yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater? Or do you just not like what they have to say?

    The public has a right to hear all sides of the issues...
    The right to "hear all sides of the issues?" Is that in the Constitution? It's not in my copy. I'd say the right to vote implies a duty to be educated and informed, but I don't believe there is any "right to hear all sides." In fact, I'd say that "all sides of the issues" are available to anybody who seeks them out via the many available mediums (internet, radio, TV, print). When people listen to Rush et al, they are CHOOSING to expose themselves to right wing ideas (and often to insulate themselves from opposing view points). If you force AM radio stations to air content that their listeners don't want to hear, they will change the dial or turn off the radio. What's next, forcing citizens to read government published pamphlets that are "fair and balanced?"

    Right wing hate radio is essentially using public property, the airwaves, to get out one side of the argument.
    The National Mall, the Lincoln Memorial and the steps of the Capitol are public property too. Do you advocate censorship there as well? Should the government have REQUIRED George Wallace to speak right after Dr. King?

    This is not opinion, it is an organized operation with a goal of presenting one viewpoint only.
    ??? :huhcld:

    But, The public owns the airwaves, not the broadcasters.
    Please feel free to obtain an FCC license and share with the nation your liberal thoughts. Nobody is stopping you. If the FCC denies you a license on based on liberal content, you can sue under the First Amendment, that is, if you take the time to stop crapping on it.

    From one Obama voter to another, chill dude. Our guy won despite AM radio and 23% of Texans being idiots. What happens with the FCC and the "Fairness" doctrine when Congress and the White House are in Republican hands again? Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.

  8. #8
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,098
    Dude, we live in America, not China.

    I shudder at the thought of the government having that power. The best way to put these guys out of business is to call them on their BS and make them look like idiots. Most people in this country have access to enough information that they know that these guys are quacks. The few that still listen to them, and believe them, probably wouldn't believe an opposing viewpoint anyway. All you can do is keep putting the truth out there and hope that people will listen.

  9. #9
    Member capcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    Any questions?
    Does your radio not have an off button?

  10. #10
    Frank Lloyd Wright Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cedars
    Posts
    4,274
    Does not the concept that the "public owns the airwaves" go away with digital signals sent down internet lines or in coded satellite feeds? If someone lays fiber optic cable then the public has no voice. I might listen to over the air material several times a year, but it gets less frequent each year. We see it with the big shrug on the new digital converters; very few people care. Once the major networks start realizing their role is to do live sports and PG sitcoms, and leave adult material to cable and pay per view, then FCC won't have much to do.

  11. #11
    the-young-and-the-bright RobertB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Official Mesquito
    Posts
    6,049
    For anyone who thinks that "both sides of the issue" deserve equal treatment in all cases, I have three words for you. "Fair And Balanced." That's a motto of Fox News, the most unabashedly reactionary "news" outlet since Pravda.

    When one side is right, and the other side is mind-numbingly stupid, "equal time" for "both sides" isn't "fairness". It's propaganda.

    Say there's a wacko who says the earth really is flat, and all signs to the contrary are part of a vast government conspiracy. Do you give "equal time" to the wacko along with a scientist with a paper-mache globe, and call it "fair and balanced"? Of course not, but that's just what happens. Simply replace "The Earth is flat" with "Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy", or perhaps "Intelligent Design disproves evolution".
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09

  12. #12
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    The poison and propaganda that is spewed out by these people is one of the largest factors that divides our nation today. They eliminate what used to be debate on issues and dictate doctrine only.
    You have to think about some of their listeners are. Truck drivers who are trapped in their vehicles for hours and can only listen to the strongest radio stations in the area. The under educated who love to hear that somebody is dumber than they are. These guys are always saying that very successful senators and members of the house of representatives are stupid and idiots. How do you think that those people got there in the first place? Is it because they are stupid? Are Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, so much smarter than the rest of us that we should bow down and believe everything that they say? This is classic propaganda that borders on the propaganda that brought Nazi Germany to power in the 1930's.

    These "Talk show Hosts" need to be counter acted or at least restricted to being able to factually back up their comments and claims. They are a perfect example of how the educated uses the uneducated and uniformed to advance their motives.

    My assertion here is simple: there is so much mis-information and deliberate dis-information coming from these guys that it is affecting our functioning as a democracy. How can 23% of Texas, who have been told Obama was a Muslim by the right wing radio nuts and believe it, make an informed political decision? And Rush is just a minor part of the problem, the local nut jobs go way over the line, calling Obama the Anti-Christ and every other nutty thing they can think of. Is it going to take Obama or a Secret Service agent getting shot for people to get the picture?

    I really think there are two things that folks are concerned about. To me, both have value but one is protected [to a degree].

    First, everyone should have ACCESS to the Public Airwaves. That is simply not possible right now because the major markets are owned by Clearchannel, CBS, Cidadel, Cumulus, Entercom, Westwood One, and Cox. The only new kid on the block of size is SiriusXM. These companies hold 80% of the market, and virtually ALL the major market stations. ClearChannel, as an example holds 30% of ALL US radio Stations 1300/4250.

    The second issue is hate speech. That is something that really needs addressed but it should not be addressed by something like fairness doctrine 2. It is going to have to be a generational change that stops the kind of spewing that resulted in much of the hate generation that spiked in the months prior to the election [and still continue to some degree]. While, according to the SCOTUS hate speech is not protected speech, in broadcasting is falls under a very odd umbrella that allows it to continue. I am of the opinion that that is not a reasonable issue to address on the broadcasting level.
    When you narrow down to the talk radio niche, ClearChannel [which wholly owns Premiere which syndicates Linbaugh] holds 86% of the market and have a firm policy of NOT competing against themselves. And therein lies the problem.

    In the broadcast medium, after deregulation, market no longer determines success. Much success in broadcasting at this point in time is due to market saturation by single corporate owners who buy up the entire market and then schedule based on a non compete scheduling. In other words, on talk stations when ClearChannel or Cumulus owns both of the stations in town, they won't put contra programs against the syndicated program that buys into 250 markets.

    Nobody has asked for equal time, nobody has demanded that THEY get on air or the "other guy" should leave. The entire concern is that, right now there is not EQUAL ACCESS. Not equal time, JUST access. That is fully lacking in most major markets.
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  13. #13
    the-young-and-the-bright RobertB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Official Mesquito
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    First, everyone should have ACCESS to the Public Airwaves. That is simply not possible right now because the major markets are owned by Clearchannel, CBS, Cidadel, Cumulus, Entercom, Westwood One, and Cox. The only new kid on the block of size is SiriusXM. These companies hold 80% of the market, and virtually ALL the major market stations. ClearChannel, as an example holds 30% of ALL US radio Stations 1300/4250.
    It's way past time for a Teddy Roosevelt-style dismantling of the Clear Channel monopoly. You hit the nail on the head -- competition isn't in their business interest, but it is clearly in the public interest. We don't need to limit free exchange of ideas, even stupid ones; we need to enable it. Standard Oil distorted the marketplace; Clear Channel distorts the First Amendment.
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09

  14. #14
    Frank Lloyd Wright Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cedars
    Posts
    4,274
    If Clear Channel or Fox could make more money having Wicca on 24-7, they would do Wicca 24-7. Rupert only cares about making money and that's the way it should be. The ONLY thing that matters is market share. If your philosophy can't make its numbers, that is its problem. Nothing personal, just business.

    We have no shortage of outlets of information on the web and access to that information. If you have an interest, you can find it. But you don't want access. You want to limit someone else's access and that is fundamentally wrong.

  15. #15
    High-Rise Member AndyIvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lakewood Heights
    Posts
    705
    I used to listen to AM talk radio, but can hardly stand to listen to their rants anymore. That includes 1080 and those crazy investment commercials they have all their personalities doing. In short, I vote with my ears. I don't need the government to control what's on the radio when I have the freedom to turn the dial as I please.

  16. #16
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    Ahem...

    NPR


  17. #17
    the-young-and-the-bright RobertB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Official Mesquito
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    Ahem...

    NPR

    Well, if we had NPR and Pacifica affiliates, then it could be argued that there was a balance of opinion on DFW airwaves. As it is, we have NPR and Rush Limbaugh, which is about as balanced as Archimedes' lever.
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09

  18. #18
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    Let me put this simply: the public is the landlord. Some here claim the renter's have the right to tell the landlord what he can and cannot do with his own property. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. The concept is simple: by law, the public is the owner of the broadcast spectrum. Congress Elected represents the public. They are the landlord, they charge rent and they make the rules. If you don't like the rent or don't like the rules, then build your own house. Well, the Democrats get to write the lease this time. Hope you like it. I want the RWNJ's to be free to say whatever they like, as long as the station gives equal access to the powerless and voiceless in society, who own the airwaves as much as anyone else, to have a say as well. If the station doesn't like it, they should get the hell off of public property and buy themselves a cable station. The Fairness doctrine can only constitutionally apply to broadcast, and please spare me the "free speech" argument, it's already been litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court years ago.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=395&page=367

    There is NOTHING remotely free market about the broadcast business. From the allocation of frequencies, federal adjustments of antenna broadcast patterns to eliminate both interference AND competition, hearing processes for application for new licenses that favor the status quo [prove you won't interfere, negatively impact the market or "oversaturate".]

    We then end up with a finite number of frequency allocations, many taken and just held by the Big Six and a price structure for any new licensing or even purchase of an existing station based fully on this fully regulated part of the system. The only thing that was DEregulated was the opportunity for single entities to purchase multiple stations in a given market which resulted in folks like ClearChannel monopolizing the market with the full and complete support of the FCC. With Federally limited SUPPLY and market driven DEMAND, It it anathema to FREE MARKET.

    The problem is that the RIGHT to ACCESS is not guaranteed under the current schema. That is the argument. And with the Communications Act of 1996, much monopoly of the industry began. We are now in an industry where ONE company owns 30% of ALL outlets and 68% of all major market outlets. That controls costs and controls access, both to frequencies [due to allocation issues] and contracts [due to competition clauses from syndicates].

    A good example of how a network is being tried [and interestingly succeeding in about 70 markets] is the Air America model. Over $50 Million was poured in from the inception by the Drobnys in 2001 to it's current lineup which is growing through purchase of secondary and tertiary market stations. It is still not going to be a marketing powerhouse as Liberals just don't sit and listen to talk radio for hours but it is interesting to see it growing.

    If they had an opportunity of access, where they bought time on established stations, I think the model would be different right now. But since 1996, that has not been possible as there are too many Government, Corporate and contractual restrictions to allow it.

    Remember, it is ACCESS that is missing, not Equal Time. Those are two different concepts.

    And when a talk radio host is pure political, equal ACCESS is something that has merit.

    As for Air America, nobody thought it would work. Liberals don't listen to the radio for hours at at time to get their information and opinion. Surveys show liberals are 25 to 28% of the talk radio market. Most read or internet for much quicker, cleaner information.

    One thing that I have learned over this past 18 months listening to the various streams. There are always good pieces of information embedded in the broadcasts.

    I have found that it is usually the secondary players that provide the most useful information with the primaries simply playing the role of agent provocateur.

    It is why almost nobody has interest in censoring or shutting rightwing radio down. It DOES have a place. And it does have a market. I think the concept of censorship is the biggest misconception of this current desire to regain rights of access of the public airwaves. Then everyone has a voice and a market.

    One of the bigger elements that we have not touched on is that when, say Rush is on station X, you cannot buy time [access] on station Y or Z that is also owned by ClearChannel due to Rush's contract. ClearChannel, in many markets simply put alternative programming on so they don't have competition. Considering 95%+ of folks would not be in the either/or market for listening, it makes no sense but it is in the contracts.

    When you narrow down to the talk radio niche, ClearChannel [which wholly owns Premiere which syndicates Limbaugh] holds 86% of the market and have a firm policy of NOT competing against themselves. And therein lies the problem.

    There's that little term. "Public Airwaves". Now tell me, suppose all the public parks in this country were rented by the Nazi Party...



    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  19. #19
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertB
    Well, if we had NPR and Pacifica affiliates, then it could be argued that there was a balance of opinion on DFW airwaves. As it is, we have NPR and Rush Limbaugh, which is about as balanced as Archimedes' lever.

    There are so many places to get your info. Most people I know who are liberals don't listen to talk radio and they don't listen to NPR either.

    The intent of the bill is wrong because it is basically stating that people don't want to hear the liberal view so we must squash the rights of those who want to hear it over AM radio.

    My problem with extreme liberalism that are the power people of the democratic party are far more concerned with how individuals have been abused throughout history and making those wrongs righted by heavily slanting civil rights dramatically towards those abused through history, than to have TRUE civil rights for ALL people and the also let the market place decide the voices people like to hear.

    And my problem with conservatism is that christians, which I am, have become more concerned pushing their specific agenda than caring for all people, and they have taken over the republican party.

    There has to be BI-PARTISON bills. And neither party gives cares about doing that. They are more concerned about their own agendas. At some point, people are going to humble themselves and say, "We've got to talk and meet in the middle. We're driving wedges that are getting worse".
    Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....

  20. #20
    the-young-and-the-bright RobertB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Official Mesquito
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedsjr
    There has to be BI-PARTISON bills. And neither party gives cares about doing that. They are more concerned about their own agendas. At some point, people are going to humble themselves and say, "We've got to talk and meet in the middle. We're driving wedges that are getting worse".
    The "bi-partisan" assumption is where the problem lies. As long as there are only two sides, every debate can be turned into us vs. them. And true "non-partisanship" doesn't exist, because everyone has their own way of defining the "public good".

    There are only solution to gridlock: one party is dominant (as is the case now), or a viable third party emerges, preferably more than one.

    I see one way that might happen. The Republican party is in disarray, with the beauty-contest watchers behind Palin, and the fiscal conservatives looking for a voice. We have two nominal "independents" in the US Senate now -- one of whom is Joe Lieberman, who will probably flip caucuses and hang out with the R crowd next session. How about Lieberman and McCain team up to form a new "US Conservative Party", dedicated to limited government and strong national defense, without the social conservative baggage. That would draw in some of those Ron Paul supporters -- it wouldn't be radical enough for the Libertarians, but it would be a lot closer.

    The Democrats won't splinter this cycle, because they feel ascendant. But all tides turn. When the nominal Republicans or the new Conservatives win big, the Democrats may find themselves in the same boat as the Republicans are now. That's when me and my Green Party friends can make our move.
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09

  21. #21
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    A third party that is between the extreme left and the extreme right would be great. I give it a 1% chance of happening.
    Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....

  22. #22
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    I think the Fairness Doctrine is bad policy and undemocratic. However if they want to use the Anti-trust act against Clear Channel and their 86% market share I wouldn't mind. Clear Channel in Denver owns KOA 860 and AM 760. KOA is the Rush Limbaugh / Conservative channel and 760 carries Air America.

  23. #23
    Just Changing Planes aygriffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DFW - SLC - YYZ
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    So this blames it all on George Bush or on the Carlyle Group? That is a horrible matrix...

    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    On the one hand I for one hope Limbaugh and Hannity continue to become more acerbic, more vitriolic, and more outrageous in their rants against Obama. It will become repellent to all but the most bigoted and idiotic among us, making the real bozos of whom we should be afraid, very easy to spot. On the other hand I haven’t forgotten that more than half of American voters chose to retain a mass-murderer in the WH in '04. I don’t have as much faith that the "most bigoted and idiotic among us" are actually a minority...

    I don’t want to go Clockwork Orange on people and force feed a message. After all, the only thing worse than propaganda is gov’t propaganda. But, The public owns the airwaves, not the broadcasters. The public has a right to hear all sides of the issues, especially given the level of outright lies emanating from the right wing on the broadcast spectrum. If you want a monopoly on opinion, that can easily be done by setting up a cable station, which is the true "private enterprise" most long for. But the broadcast spectrum is public property and one must obtain a license to use it from the government. It's about time the license required truth and balance.

    What Limbaugh and Hannity are doing is not that different than other illegal activities, like inciting to riot, or to commit hate crimes. I am not really sure he has a right to disseminate his depraved ideas over the public's radio bandwidth as the bulk of his message is really not something for kids to hear. Kind of like Howard Stern is "pay for the privilege to hear his voice and ideas" because it is deemed inappropriate for public airing, so is Rush. Hate and polarization are far worse than toilet humor for a kid to hear.

    Right wing hate radio is essentially using public property, the airwaves, to get out one side of the argument. I have no problem with his right to disseminate bullshit, what I do have a problem with is the fact corporate America has figured out a way to propagandize the public. I travel all over the US, and I can fly out of one city, land in another 1,000 miles away, and find that the local AM radio fascist is talking about the same exact thing, pushing the same exact disinformation, which is spun exactly as the guy I was listening too a few hours ago in Houston was spinning it. This is not opinion, it is an organized operation with a goal of presenting one viewpoint only. We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine on the broadcast spectrum to remedy this crap.

    Oh good another Obama supporter that says I'm a idiot bigot, thats gonna win me over really quickly. Oh and if you happen to have been within 25 ft of speakers playing Rush, Hanity, Liddy or Levin you are participating in illegal activities such as hate crimes.

    You know I could handle being a republican when the only democrats that were callng us racists were Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and the shameful children and family of MLK (he is rolling in his grave today). But now its becoming more mainstream to call any conservative Republican a racist/bigot because he didn't vote for a candidate that was African American. I thought we were choosing a candidate based on his politics and character? I don't care if it was Republican Candidate Alan Keyes vs Democrat Barak Obama, I wouldn't have voted for Obama. If you need to wiki Alan Keyes go ahead (oh yes, an African American Republican!).

    You know your ideas don't hold alot of water when on a board of left leaning posters you aren't getting a favorable response. You've lost your mind and most of America will agree with you on this one because as much as you blame it on Clear Channel, George Bush, Ronald Regan or the Carlyle Group the majority of US citizens won't go for it. Luckily you have your ultra left leaning elected officials that might try to push through that garbage piece of legislation.

    In the future whenever you feel this strong to write this master piece of verbal diarrhea, just write your congressman, you won't get too much sympathy from the general public.

  24. #24
    Just Changing Planes aygriffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DFW - SLC - YYZ
    Posts
    1,125
    Oh and Concreterest, I'm very interested to see how your concrete company does over the next 4 to 8 years. Things are looking pretty tough for small business owner and concrete usage has got to be dropping quite a bit...

    But I hear on Jan 20th that butterflies and contracts for miles and miles of concrete will fall out of the sky. And if that doesn't happen well there's always ole George Bushy to blame it on!

  25. #25
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    Now tell me, suppose all the public parks in this country were rented by the Nazi Party...
    Quote Originally Posted by aygriffith
    But now its becoming more mainstream to call any conservative Republican a racist/bigot because he didn't vote for a candidate that was African American.
    Wow, two absurd statements from opposite ends of the American divide.

    Concretist, part of the liberal philosophy is respecting an individuals right to make his or her own decisions. Marriage, reproductive rights, education, and what radio station they want to listen to come to mind. Some of the positions you advocate for so strongly betray the liberal philosophy that you might as well be wearing a swastika yourself.

    Aygriffith, are we trying to project the image of a few left wing radicals on Democrats and liberals in general? If anything, this election was about character, issues, and positions. Most of us did not dwell on race, even when the media tried to forcefully inject it into the public debate (Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, etc.). I'm surprised you are so against Obama and the Democrats considering that they are going to be a more favorable party when it comes to securing federal funding for so many of these expensive local projects that you love so much.

  26. #26
    Just Changing Planes aygriffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DFW - SLC - YYZ
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjz
    Aygriffith, are we trying to project the image of a few left wing radicals on Democrats and liberals in general? If anything, this election was about character, issues, and positions. Most of us did not dwell on race, even when the media tried to forcefully inject it into the public debate (Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, etc.)..
    You elected a ultra left wing candidate, all you have to do is look at his voting record. Thats not opinion, its mearly and observation of factual events. The country is classicly center right to center left in its opinions, President Elect Obama is not. He was durring the campaign because he had to be, but representing those who elected him in the senate and at the state level he was far from center left in his record. If you don't want to judge politicians by associations or character or any of these other discrepancies that we were told to ignore about Obama then all we had was his voting record which never matched with what he said. The way our government conducts the business of this country needs fundamental change, not our country as a whole.

    George Bush was not a great president nor a great conservative. John McCain was a poor poor pick as a candidate and was magnified by his poor pick for VP. The GOP is in disarray because they lost, but so were the democrats in 2000, it always comes full circle as it will again probably quicker in 2010.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjz
    I'm surprised you are so against Obama and the Democrats considering that they are going to be a more favorable party when it comes to securing federal funding for so many of these expensive local projects that you love so much.
    Many? I support the CC Hotel because I see it as supporting the other civic investment that is the DCC. Is the way it will be built and financed that of an ultra right wing conservatives dreams? Not in the least... But I've never been the ultra right wing conservative. But there again lies the problem, if you were against the Obama presidency you must be some sort of ultra conservative bible beating George Bush booster. My boosting of the DCC Hotel, poor church attendance and general disregard for many aspects of the bush presidency shouldn't qualify me for what you refer to as being from a very opposite end of the divide from Concretist.

    I will give a reason I dislike the future of a Obama presidency that had about as much detail as many Obama supporters reasons for liking him. Obama's revisionist fundamental change for all aspects of America sounds good from 30 thousand feet but gets more disturbing as you get closer in. You should always be careful when you ask for fundamental change, prior examples in history haven't fared so well.

    Concretist, Sorry if I used any "code words" Its hard keeping up with them. So maybe if you make a sticky post so the rest of us can avoid using such common words as Liberal and Socialist among the others that have been mentioned. I'd hate to offend those who are constantly offended...

  27. #27
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by aygriffith
    Concretist, Sorry if I used any "code words" Its hard keeping up with them. So maybe if you make a sticky post so the rest of us can avoid using such common words as Liberal and Socialist among the others that have been mentioned. I'd hate to offend those who are constantly offended...
    All you have spewed is Rushspeak. And yes, since I listen, I have heard the Rush Argument on access and his spin on the Fairness Doctrine. I note that he leaves out the parts where he and ClearChannel contractually eliminate competition.

    Apparently you don't understand either the concept of access or of monopoly.

    If, as an example the AG of your state finds that Tyson is locking down the chicken market and not allowing others in due to contracts with grocery stores, Tyson gets a cease and desist notice.

    Learn the concepts that are being discussed. The question is a right to access, not a mandate to access. If you can't understand that difference [and I really doubt that you can] then just keep listening to what Rush tells you to think on the subject. You are the perfect lemming for him.

    And that reminds me...
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  28. #28
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by aygriffith
    You elected a ultra left wing candidate, all you have to do is look at his voting record. Thats not opinion, its mearly and observation of factual events. The country is classicly center right to center left in its opinions, President Elect Obama is not. He was durring the campaign because he had to be, but representing those who elected him in the senate and at the state level he was far from center left in his record. If you don't want to judge politicians by associations or character or any of these other discrepancies that we were told to ignore about Obama then all we had was his voting record which never matched with what he said. The way our government conducts the business of this country needs fundamental change, not our country as a whole.

    George Bush was not a great president nor a great conservative. John McCain was a poor poor pick as a candidate and was magnified by his poor pick for VP. The GOP is in disarray because they lost, but so were the democrats in 2000, it always comes full circle as it will again probably quicker in 2010.



    Many? I support the CC Hotel because I see it as supporting the other civic investment that is the DCC. Is the way it will be built and financed that of an ultra right wing conservatives dreams? Not in the least... But I've never been the ultra right wing conservative. But there again lies the problem, if you were against the Obama presidency you must be some sort of ultra conservative bible beating George Bush booster. My boosting of the DCC Hotel, poor church attendance and general disregard for many aspects of the bush presidency shouldn't qualify me for what you refer to as being from a very opposite end of the divide from Concretist.

    I will give a reason I dislike the future of a Obama presidency that had about as much detail as many Obama supporters reasons for liking him. Obama's revisionist fundamental change for all aspects of America sounds good from 30 thousand feet but gets more disturbing as you get closer in. You should always be careful when you ask for fundamental change, prior examples in history haven't fared so well.

    Concretist, Sorry if I used any "code words" Its hard keeping up with them. So maybe if you make a sticky post so the rest of us can avoid using such common words as Liberal and Socialist among the others that have been mentioned. I'd hate to offend those who are constantly offended...
    Well... after 8 years of 'center right' GWB, we could use a turn to the left.

    As for disturbing, what about all three auto makers going out by the end of the year. What about the bank failures? What about AIG? We've already hit 'disturbing', buddy. Disturbing is here and looking at all of us.

  29. #29
    Low-Rise Member chrismisquez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    As for disturbing, what about all three auto makers going out by the end of the year. What about the bank failures? What about AIG? We've already hit 'disturbing', buddy. Disturbing is here and looking at all of us.
    So, would your suggestion be to prop up a failing auto industry. How many times could GM, Chrysler, and Ford be bought for $25 Billion? I remember after 9/11 many major airlines went bankrupt. So how are those same airlines doing today?

    How much money should we allocate for the leisure of AIG higher ups?

    What about the credit card companies? When can't make our payment, they send it to a collection agency and put it on your credit report. When they are strapped for cash, they go to the government for handouts.

    The jury is still out on whose policies affected the banks in a manner that lead them to collapse.


    I would never have voted for Obama based on policies. According to the radio stations I listen to (97.9, 104.5), I must be racist. The trust is that I'm not sold on Obama's policies. Don't think I am head over heals for McCain either. I just don't think we can spend our way out of this mess. I don't think that it is neccessary to prop up industries. That mindset will encourage others to take unnecessary risks with dire consequences. What ever happened to accountability?

    We need a third party that will go by the constitution, and not try to manipulate it to their advantage. A party that will alow each state to govern itself. I believe that decisions on universal healthcare, minimum wages, drug laws, gay mariages, what type of guns you can own, etc. should be made at the state level. If you don't like the policies in the state you live in... there are 49 other states to choose from.

  30. #30
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by chrismisquez
    So, would your suggestion be to prop up a failing auto industry. How many times could GM, Chrysler, and Ford be bought for $25 Billion? I remember after 9/11 many major airlines went bankrupt. So how are those same airlines doing today?

    How much money should we allocate for the leisure of AIG higher ups?

    What about the credit card companies? When can't make our payment, they send it to a collection agency and put it on your credit report. When they are strapped for cash, they go to the government for handouts.

    The jury is still out on whose policies affected the banks in a manner that lead them to collapse.


    I would never have voted for Obama based on policies. According to the radio stations I listen to (97.9, 104.5), I must be racist. The trust is that I'm not sold on Obama's policies. Don't think I am head over heals for McCain either. I just don't think we can spend our way out of this mess. I don't think that it is neccessary to prop up industries. That mindset will encourage others to take unnecessary risks with dire consequences. What ever happened to accountability?

    We need a third party that will go by the constitution, and not try to manipulate it to their advantage. A party that will alow each state to govern itself. I believe that decisions on universal healthcare, minimum wages, drug laws, gay mariages, what type of guns you can own, etc. should be made at the state level. If you don't like the policies in the state you live in... there are 49 other states to choose from.
    First, I'm not accusing you of being racist. I can totally appreciate the fact that you do not care for his stance on policies. I don't agree with everything he has to say as well.

    I think both parties have their good ideas and bad ideas. A third party would be wonderful, but alas not realistic. As for manipulating the constitution, I think that's impossible. For example, there is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage. Creating an amendment to define marriage is manipulating the constitution.

    I think in most cases states should have the right to govern themselves and in only extraordinary instances should the federal government intervene. Such as the Civil Rights Act. I don't doubt for a second that certain southern states would return to the days of Jim Crow if allowed.

    As for moving to another state, I currently reside in Denver, Colorado. I love Texas, but I do not care for it's leadership. It's a one party state. With one ideology, conservatism. There's no discourse. Having lived in more than one spot my whole life, I've come to the realization that there is a million ways to do things. Here in Colorado they have PRIVATE garbage pick up... not municipal. They also have open spaces and smart growth... I could go on, but seriously, there's nothing that the Democrats offer that has any interest to you?

    As for propping up the auto industry, banking industry etc. The only alternative is a really nasty recession, and being in the construction industry I would be out on my tail feathers by the end of next year. I think everyone in DC is trying not to make the mistakes made in 1930. You might call it socialism, I call it desperationism. If my irresponsible boss gets bailed out, I get bailed out in return. If my irresponsible boss gets the ax, I get the ax. Why do I have to pay the price for my bosses lack or accountability?
    Last edited by texcolo2; 19 November 2008 at 10:18 PM.

  31. #31
    Just Changing Planes aygriffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DFW - SLC - YYZ
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by concretist
    All you have spewed is Rushspeak. And yes, since I listen, I have heard the Rush Argument on access and his spin on the Fairness Doctrine. I note that he leaves out the parts where he and ClearChannel contractually eliminate competition.

    Apparently you don't understand either the concept of access or of monopoly.

    If, as an example the AG of your state finds that Tyson is locking down the chicken market and not allowing others in due to contracts with grocery stores, Tyson gets a cease and desist notice.

    Learn the concepts that are being discussed. The question is a right to access, not a mandate to access. If you can't understand that difference [and I really doubt that you can] then just keep listening to what Rush tells you to think on the subject. You are the perfect lemming for him.

    And that reminds me...
    So you've only proved my point by saying I've uttered "Rushspeak." I serously think you laughing as you type these responses. I appreciate the humor, its odd but your responses are well thought out in their rediculousness.

    As for Tyson... if the others couldn't ever produce results because of their poor products I suppose they would over and over again cease to be competition. Much like left wing radio. You don't have to listen to Rush to understand that concept, you just have to have been around the past 20 years and watched liberal radio fail over and over again. Maybe since the left was able to rally voters around you're "game changing" candidate you could do the same for your radio talking heads. If its about right to access than the only mandate you need has already been created for you. I understand the difference, and the difference something you hope the public won't see due to you associating the issue with George Bush and right wing radio talking heads.

    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    As for disturbing, what about all three auto makers going out by the end of the year. What about the bank failures? What about AIG? We've already hit 'disturbing', buddy. Disturbing is here and looking at all of us.
    Gosh youre right, we already gave them 25 billion to become more green, lets go ahead and give them another 25 billion to restructure.

    A few questions...

    Why do we have to give all 3 of them money. I think we know of the three there is a perennial loser of the trio. Yet we've been convinced that we need to without question give 2 losers and one hopeless company a bailout. And merging GM and Chrysler would not solve the "why all 3?" question.

    If we give any of them money, why is it not in bankruptcy? I think giving them money is a horrible idea, but if we did why is it not as debtor in possession financing? That route would have a better chance of forcing them to make changes to get the money. I'm sure the union lobby in D.C. would not want bankruptcy to happen because there would be forced concessions. Plus the government should as a bank would get a higher return on its loan if indeed these companies pulled out of bankruptcy.

    Why is it any wonder where the big three are at. Look at the Big Three $60 an hour union employees north of the mason dixon that make $20 to $25 an hour more than auto workers in the southeast at foreign auto maker plants. Its shocking really, but not a suprise that the big three are putting themselves out of business. But don't worry card check will take care of states like Alabama that have three foreign auto plans without union strongholds. Thats not "Rush Speak" its just fact. Those people in AL make $1300 a week average in a state where the average is $800 a week, sounds fair to me (and we're all about fairness these days, right?).

    Like another poster said... Airlines almost went belly up all across the board after 9/11 where was the government? Those airlines mostly went straight to the banks that their credit cards were with and said fund us or you are going to lose all those customers, and the banks did. Was there cosolidation, you bet... but it was needed, as is this round of consolidation through merger.

    Lets bail out grocery store chains! They have faced alot of hardship and consolidation. Albertsons will probably be bankrupt and out of business in the next 5 years. You know that industry only makes around 4 percent profit on their best months. They employ thousands of people and provide all of us with the food we eat every day. They are ESSENTIAL just like domestic autos that are ESSENTIAL to us too. Its just not fair to them...

    It sucks to be big oil right now, its just not fair! Oil will probably sink to 40 a barrel and they've been budgeting for a minimum of 70 to 90 dollars a barrel on their expenses and projects. They're just like the domestic auto industry, they recently have been raking in the dough and now times are tough and they are facing serious hardships ahead. We better ask if they need any money, its ESSENTIAL!

    There is a laundry list of industries that have been living hard times and in and out of bankruptcy/consolidation for the last 10 years. Many of them have little to no union membership and won't be missed. Yet many of them provide for us with little to no alternative companies. The domestic auto industry rarely provides and there are many better alternatives.



    Hey Concretist, I would like to unionize your Concrete business. I think your wages are substandard and your benefits are poor at best. I believe its your employees "right" to have better wages, benefit, hours, and vacation. I will "mandate" this even if its at your expense. Don't worry I"m sure your competitors won't be too much more profitable.... Is that alright with you?

  32. #32
    Low-Rise Member chrismisquez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    I think both parties have their good ideas and bad ideas. A third party would be wonderful, but alas not realistic.
    It would only fail because a third party is not in the best interests of democrats or republicans. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The third party would be crushed into submission. Also, we would have to change the way we do elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    As for manipulating the constitution, I think that's impossible. For example, there is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage. Creating an amendment to define marriage is manipulating the constitution.
    I would think that when you interpret the constitution in a way that fits your agenda, that would be considered manipulating the constitution. Let's use guns as an example. If my argument was that people shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle or handgun because they weren't around when the constitution was signed would be manipulating the law.

    I don't consider gay marriage a civil rights issue. Many people are open to civil unions having all the same rights as marriage. The beef is that they want it to be called marriage. So, technically they should lobby merriam-webster to change the definition. I also hear many people compare the civil rights movement to the gay marriage movement. I just don't see any simularities. Gays use the same restrooms as hetrosexuals. They eat at the same restraunts. The use the same drinking fountains. They can sit anywhere on the bus. I just don't see how one could compare the two.


    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    I think in most cases states should have the right to govern themselves and in only extraordinary instances should the federal government intervene.
    We can definately agree on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    I could go on, but seriously, there's nothing that the Democrats offer that has any interest to you?
    You can call me crazy, but I believe in self reliance. It might sound a little extreme, but it's entirely possible. I believe that our federal government is there to protect us from foreign enemies, and build relationships with other countries. They should only exercise blanket authority on situations like civil rights. I have no problems with democrat ideas as long as they are at the state level. I can always move to another state. If one state wants universal health care, increased spending on public education (without results), drug law refomation, etc. I can always pack my bags. I'm sure somebody will take my place when they find out about the handouts.

    I do wish our drug laws were a little more liberal. I would keep the synthetics illegal.



    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    As for propping up the auto industry, banking industry etc. The only alternative is a really nasty recession, and being in the construction industry I would be out on my tail feathers by the end of next year. I think everyone in DC is trying not to make the mistakes made in 1930. You might call it socialism, I call it desperationism. If my irresponsible boss gets bailed out, I get bailed out in return. If my irresponsible boss gets the ax, I get the ax. Why do I have to pay the price for my bosses lack or accountability?
    GM is producing cars that nobody wants to buy. It doesn't make since that they make 3-4 cars with different names. I drive a Pontiac Grand Prix. It's basically the same as the Chevy Monte Carlo, and the Buick Regal. How many different names does GM have to put on their vehicles? Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Pontiac, GMC. Many of the Chevy SUV's are almost industinguishable from the GMC SUV's.

    They need to streamline their operations. That will not happen unless they go through chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    Since we're bailing everybody out, where do we draw the line. Every industry feels like they are hurting. It IS going to be a nasty recession.

  33. #33
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by aygriffith
    Hey Concretist, I would like to unionize your Concrete business. I think your wages are substandard and your benefits are poor at best. I believe its your employees "right" to have better wages, benefit, hours, and vacation. I will "mandate" this even if its at your expense. Don't worry I"m sure your competitors won't be too much more profitable.... Is that alright with you?
    Wishing ill upon another--how Republican of you. Actually such a move would help me considering my least costly employee makes 1200 a week with fully paid health insurance (unionizing would only reduce my cost of operating and force my competition to treat their employees as fairly as I treat mine). The struggle for the worthy never ends with one's self. Recognize that we are but a fleeting moment on this planet but our deeds live on, not our personal wealth and it means nothing to maintain said wealth if it is just to be rich with no moral wealth.

    Regarding the big 3 auto makers: Well, many of their decisions over the years were right. American buyers wanted trucks and SUVs and the Big3 provided them. Since Americans traded cars ever 36 months quality was not as big of an issue as it is for companies were folks keep their cars longer. So that decision was basically sound [on the surface].

    Now, what they did not do was address the growing energy problems that have been known from the early 1970s. They started off well, scaling back the largest of cars but really stalled. These are the big series of decisions that got lost as big profits from Trucks/SUVs brought big profits [at least through mid 2005].

    So, their decision making is not 100% bad, more like 60/40 bad.

    As for letting them go and letting startups pick up the slack with alternative fuel vehicles. That just won't work as the infrastructure to make that scenario work with any scale would require massive investment from somewhere [China, India, Saudi Arabia, UAE???]. If we are going to be energy independent our best bet is to gamble on the Big3 with a really tight leash to go that route. They can retool quicker, have the engineering staff in house and the skillset to actually move metal. Right now, most of the startups are in the "move proposals and grants" stage.

    Love em or hate em, the Big 3, in some incarnation needs to be part of the future of this country's economic resurgence. We need something with mass and momentum that can move large blocks of economic growth quickly and that is one of the best, quickest opportunities.

    Please name another sector that can provide as much economic push as this industry to help stabilize and grow an economy. I frankly cannot think of any.

    The auto industry accounts for nearly 20% of the US manufacturing economy. That is very significant and demands notice. Some say they don't believe the auto manufacturing needs to be part of an economic recovery. No nation in history has proven to grow its economy without a very strong manufacturing base.
    I still don't see any answer that addresses the question of what industry can provide as much economic push as this industry to help stabilize and grow this current US economy in it's current condition.

    We can talk all day that the Big3 "did wrong in the past". And they did some wrong. But they also did some right. What they offer is a tremendous infrastructure already built that doesn't require startup guesswork and hope. It requires new thinking and a VERY TIGHT LEASH. But that is doable and one hell of a lot cheaper than letting them crash and burn and us picking up the pieces. The math just doesn't make sense otherwise.

    Working our way out of our current economic problems will require some creative imagination. But tax cuts, borrowing and digging out of recession are like Matter, Antimatter and Amy Winehouse, they just don't mix.

    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  34. #34
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,963
    We'll have to close this thread if personal insults continue.

    While a federal financial bail-out has little to do with the initial media Fairness Doctrine topic, these extracurricular topics can contune. But please do not allow political disagreements from this thread to seep into the discussion stream of topics more germane to the forum's purpose.

  35. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    67
    It appears to me that we have two choices, we either hold our noses and make the loans, or we stand on principle and duck as things come crashing down.

  36. #36
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by chrismisquez
    GM is producing cars that nobody wants to buy. It doesn't make since that they make 3-4 cars with different names. I drive a Pontiac Grand Prix. It's basically the same as the Chevy Monte Carlo, and the Buick Regal. How many different names does GM have to put on their vehicles? Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Pontiac, GMC. Many of the Chevy SUV's are almost industinguishable from the GMC SUV's.

    They need to streamline their operations. That will not happen unless they go through chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    Since we're bailing everybody out, where do we draw the line. Every industry feels like they are hurting. It IS going to be a nasty recession.
    GM sold around 170,000 cars in October and that's way down from last year. Someone is buying their cars.

    As for consolidating, they did do away with Oldsmobile a few years ago.

    Bankruptcy would kill all three companies for this reason, no one will buy a car from a company in bankruptcy. The value of the vehicle would plummet, the warranty would be suspect and parts would become difficult to come by.

    Remember, taking down the big three might feel nice, but it would take down better run parts-supply companies by the score. Companies ranging from Firestone, Fisher... etc.

    Let's say the companies go into bankruptcy. I can't think of anyone that can afford to buy the Ford Rouge plant an put it into production. The capital it takes to start a car company is astronomical and impossible to put forward these days. Ever wonder why the Canadians don't have a car company? I assure you they do.

    I will say this, the UAW has gone overboard, and the pensions are killing any profits the big three are making. But, if it wasn't for the unions, you, me and every working American would be toiling like they did in the 1890's for scraps. Unions have done wonders, but they are historical wonders. The 40 hour work week, the 2 day weekend, Living Wages... etc.

  37. #37
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,547
    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    I will say this, the UAW has gone overboard, and the pensions are killing any profits the big three are making. But, if it wasn't for the unions, you, me and every working American would be toiling like they did in the 1890's for scraps. Unions have done wonders, but they are historical wonders. The 40 hour work week, the 2 day weekend, Living Wages... etc.
    I remember touring a GM plant back in the 80's. My sister worked there so I was able to go visit one day and tour the plant. It was a curious event because the only thing I remember about it that nobody was actually working except the salaried employees in the office. The factory floor was shut down because the union worked out an agreement with GM that the union employees could only produce x number of widgets per hour so once that quota was reached the production stopped. So, most of the hour was spent playing cards, walking around and chatting with your friends and so on. There was no such thing as a 40 hour work week in this plant. It was more like 20. Granted, this was back in the 80's but is it any wonder why Honda and Toyota are doing so well here today. The big 3 are in Washington begging for handouts to prolong an already desperate situation while Honda is considering ramping up production on the Civic. What is wrong with this picture?

  38. #38
    Just Changing Planes aygriffith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DFW - SLC - YYZ
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    Let's say the companies go into bankruptcy. I can't think of anyone that can afford to buy the Ford Rouge plant an put it into production. The capital it takes to start a car company is astronomical and impossible to put forward these days. Ever wonder why the Canadians don't have a car company? I assure you they do.
    We're talking just as the whole world has been talking about declaring Chapter 11, not 7. They are spending in the neighborhood of 1 billion a month per car maker to run their operations. Chrysler only has 6 billion left to work with and they say they'll probably burn through that by Feb 09. Its not much cheaper to operate or better funded at GM and Ford. No one would buy the Ford Rouge Plant, Ford would still own it. The Debitor in Possession financing would do multiple beneficial things for the government. It would yeild a higher intrest rate because of its increased risk (not saying normal financing is really any less risky, they would be getting the rate they really should this way), it would give the organization putting forth the money, the federal government, priority over existing debt and lastly it would force the automakers to fufill their obligations under reorganization. Its beneficial for companies to declare Chapter 11 in these situations, it gives them better access to financing because they are offering up a higher rate of return for the risk (as they should). Many US airlines have gone Chapter 11 multiple times in their lifetimes only to reemerge stronger companies due to the rigid guidelines of restructuring. WHY IS IT that automakers are so above this tried and true process???

    Quote Originally Posted by texcolo2
    I will say this, the UAW has gone overboard, and the pensions are killing any profits the big three are making. But, if it wasn't for the unions, you, me and every working American would be toiling like they did in the 1890's for scraps. Unions have done wonders, but they are historical wonders. The 40 hour work week, the 2 day weekend, Living Wages... etc.
    Just like their wonders being historical, so are the unions themselves. I often chuckle at the few union people I know talk about putting in 2 to 4 hours overtime over the normal 40 a week and how they worked like a dog all week. Then I look at how I never work less than 50 and so does every other corporate level person I know because thats what it takes to get the job done and your clients and customers satisfied. Just another example of how the unions have trained their employees to be out of touch...

  39. #39
    Member concretist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    parker county
    Posts
    97
    Your logic would work only if companies that had union contracts were the ONLY ones having problems. Also, you might want to look at the European model and note that they don't have the same issues. Greed made the unions what they were in the 70s. What they are now, for the most part are partners with companies. The old perceptions of Unions are just no longer valid.

    You are only looking at a small number of the factors that have gone into the depression of the manufacturing. OUTSOURCING for work at $0.20 per HOUR for manufacturing completely moots the Union arguments as there are NO workers in the United States that will reduce their standards of living to compete with a person that makes $440 PER YEAR.

    Unions raised the bar for all workers, YES and that is a good thing. It enhanced the standard of living for everyone. Unless rampant inflation is associated with the raise, it works for everyone, business and worker. Then OFFSHORE happened. You cannot blame Unions for Offshore. Yet that is the prime contributor to US plants closing and US divisions shutting down manufacturing. It has been for nearly 25 years.

    When I talk to one of the GM's at Toyota Manufacturing in Georgetown, he says that between the base labor costs [around $25 per hour], plus overtime, plus benefits, his labor costs are within 10% of any Union shop.

    The problem is in some of the pension funds which the 70s era management failed to fully fund when they were flush with cash and therefore have to tap current resources to pay for their part of pension and benefits to retirees.

    Good news for the Big 2/3, those retirees are dieing off at record rates so the problem is being buried.

    In all of these posts we're still not addressing the two most critical factors of the debate. First, what industry can step up to provide fuel for the economic engine as we reinvigorate this economy? And Second, what do we, as a country do with the Million plus people who would be economically displaced if we allow this industry to fail? And those include Primary, secondary and tertiary impacts, not just those union workers or those upper management folks who made bad decisions.

    Those are the two questions that really count in November 2008, with the CURRENT conditions and the CURRENT environment and the CURRENT economic pressures on everyone from taxpayers to cities to the federal government.
    Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
    -- George Monbiot

  40. #40
    Skyscraper Member Spjz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Un Barrio en San Antonio
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by aygriffith
    Just like their wonders being historical, so are the unions themselves. I often chuckle at the few union people I know talk about putting in 2 to 4 hours overtime over the normal 40 a week and how they worked like a dog all week. Then I look at how I never work less than 50 and so does every other corporate level person I know because thats what it takes to get the job done and your clients and customers satisfied. Just another example of how the unions have trained their employees to be out of touch...
    Union greed is no different from corporate greed; both lead a company to ruin and there are plenty examples of both.

    That said, I believe that unions are a symptom and not a cause of the problem. 5 out of the last 7 presidential terms have been republican/anti union and for the most part, so has the National Labor Relations Board. Most of the jobs in the manufacturing sector would have gone oversees with or without the influence of unions over the past century. The price of foreign labor and the price of oil has been to cheap to prevent American manufacturers from doing anything else. Unions don't have a lot of push or pull right now, and won't unless Card Check gets passed (and that will be a whole 'nother ball wax if it does).

    The service industry can't outsource jobs as easily as other sectors. You can't outsource a waiter, store merchandiser, sales manager, janitor, etc. Those jobs must be done on site. Card Check legislation will definitely transform the consumer landscape, for better or for worse. For better: maybe some Walmarts will shut down. For worse: prices will definitely go up, no question there.
    Last edited by Spjz; 21 November 2008 at 10:06 AM.

  41. #41
    Dallas Aesthetisist texcolo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    282
    I'm not even sure if unions are the biggest problem with the car companies. Pensions and health care costs are extraordinary. Health care costs in general are extraordinary. I think being able to pull your own weight is a great thing, but if you get sick and have to file Chapter 11 because of it... something's seriously wrong.

    I have a friend who owns his own insulation installation business. He has about 12 people working under him, he's a real stand up guy. But, he has a heart palpitation, and every time he takes a trip to the hospital he signs over all his belongings to his friends and files for bankruptcy. Being a small business owner, getting a HMO plan for himself with his condition is astronomical. High cost of health care is impeding free enterprise and damaging our economy, as well as the automakers.

    Universal health care might impede medical developments, but what good is medicine if no one can afford it?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •