UAW Endorses Kerry

2590 Views 52 Replies 20 Participants Last post by actionjack, Mar 31, 2004

nsap

Discussion Starter · Mar 26, 2004

The UAW has endorsed Sen. John Kerry's bid for president -- a move timed to give the Massachusetts Democrat a boost on the eve of his campaign visit to Michigan.

During a telephone interview Thursday, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger confirmed that the union will back Kerry despite previous policy differences. On Thursday, the UAW's board voted unanimously to support Kerry, Gettelfinger said.

"There is no question that Kerry's record on two issues -- trade and CAFE -- is perhaps not everything that we would want," Gettelfinger said. "But it clearly is superior to Bush's record."

And Gettelfinger noted that Kerry has moved closer to the union position on those issues. The UAW has argued that a sharp increase in federal fuel economy standards would destroy manufacturing jobs.

Read More

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

Askani

· #2 · Mar 26, 2004

Does this make sense to anyone? (Besides hard-core liberals that will say anything to endorse Kerry.)

cyboexpo2002

· #3 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by Askani@Mar 26 2004, 10:01 AM
Does this make sense to anyone? (Besides hard-core liberals that will say anything to endorse Kerry.)

You mean environmentalism vs. the auto industry? Well, kinda conflicts there...

Highlander

· #4 · Mar 26, 2004

Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

cyboexpo2002

· #5 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by Highlander@Mar 26 2004, 10:30 AM
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

So you'd rather support the President's view that outsourcing to China is good for the economy?

Ming

· #6 · Mar 26, 2004

The Unions' support of Gephardt really did him a lot of good.

The idea that anyone in this day and age would vote with their Union (and not their own brain) is kind of sickening.

I remember reading about the days when you would carry a blue or pink ballot, the UAW would bus you in to the voting site, and then you would stand in line with other Union workers, holding a blue or pink card. (I think pink was Democrat then) - And if you were the only one in line carrying a blue card....well, let's just say you wouldn't be the only one in line carrying a blue card...

lakota

· #7 · Mar 26, 2004

Man there's a story ..UAW supporting a Democrat..Big surprise there!! (This drips with sarcasm)

GTOken

· #8 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by nsap@Mar 26 2004, 09:03 AM
The UAW has argued that a sharp increase in federal fuel economy standards would destroy manufacturing jobs.

How? Looks to me like if we were making cars that got better fuel economy we could compete better with imports. I personally dont care for the strict epa standards but this argument from the UAW makes no sense at all. (as usual)

Also, wont this pit the liberal UAW against the liberal whacko tree hugging environmentalist?

SUPERBADD75

· #9 · Mar 26, 2004

outsourcing will happen anyway... any company is going to do what is cheaper, and puts more money into the pockets of its shareholders (and higher-ups, of course). John ***** Kerry is a bad choice for president. i already pay enough taxes, i want to continue to enjoy my car, and living in the suburbs, and i don't want 9-11 to happen again. taking Bush out of the Oval Office in the middle of this war is a bad idea, not to mention putting Kerry in there, and having our troops removed from Iraq and Afghanistan. we might as well just go beg Bin Laden to bomb NY or DC again and again... that's what would happen with Kerry in office. Libs are not the answer.

GTOken

· #10 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by cyboexpo2002@Mar 26 2004, 10:38 AM

So you'd rather support the President's view that outsourcing to China is good for the economy?

Just wondering.... How would it balance out if we kept all of our jobs in this country (quit out-sourcing) but also kicked out all foriegn companies that have hired millions of Americans. Cant have it both ways.

Remember, big business is in business to make money, its not charity. I saw the numbers on a news report the other night and the truth is the the number of jobs be outsourced is a very very small percentage of the job market and they are mostly low paying jobs anyway. If American want to keep jobs here how about trying this old concept.... competition.... match the wages and I will garantee you the jobs will stay here.

desmo9

· #11 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by GTOken+Mar 26 2004, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GTOken @ Mar 26 2004, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cyboexpo2002@Mar 26 2004, 10:38 AM

So you'd rather support the President's view that outsourcing to China is good for the economy?

Just wondering.... How would it balance out if we kept all of our jobs in this country (quit out-sourcing) but also kicked out all foriegn companies that have hired millions of Americans. Cant have it both ways.
[/b][/quote]
Point taken with respect to blue collar jobs. The UAW, with its demands for $60K wages, 95% of pay for layoff, and inflexible work practices, can pound sand. They may appear to be on the side of job retention, but they're a good part of the reason the automakers need to find lower cost labor overseas in order to compete. Take an auto component supplier with UAW membership in the U.S. One job in the U.S. at $24 an hour averaged with another job in China at $1 an hour is equivalent to non-UAW U.S. supplier retaining two jobs here at a very fair market-rate wage of $12 an hour each. Sixty grand for unskilled, blue-collar work is highway robbery. Until they wake up and smell the coffee, they are ASKING for job losses here, and are partly to blame for the trend.

But the disturbing trend as of late is the outsourcing of white-collar jobs. We need to push technology, but tech professions will be less attractive if outsourcing has resulted in fewer jobs and lower salaries. Our economic strength is rooted in technological leadership, and diluting that edge so companies can save a buck on payroll is a terrible long-term plan.

On the other hand, if white-collar jobs in foreign markets support the local markets (as is the case with most foreign corp. presence in the U.S), then it's not really outsourcing in the same context, and the economic damage to the U.S. is minimized. Said another way, an American company's global R&D should reside in the U.S., encouraging economies of scale and to keep our technical competencies and leadership intact. Applications and manufacturing engineering may reside in the local markets overseas, to support local markets. Thus, 1) Keep the core knowledge in the U.S and 2) Keep foreign investment in a nation commensurate with its market for our goods, no more. ... That's acceptable practice.

See less See more

MMS

· #12 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by Highlander@Mar 26 2004, 03:30 PM
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

Wow, you make in the top 5% of all incomes? You must, if Kerry's plans to role back tax cuts to the rich are going to affect you...

actionjack

· #13 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by cyboexpo2002+Mar 26 2004, 03:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cyboexpo2002 @ Mar 26 2004, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Highlander@Mar 26 2004, 10:30 AM
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

So you'd rather support the President's view that outsourcing to China is good for the economy? [/b][/quote]
Amen to that.

Or could be like the others, it is only 3 million jobs (so far).

Bush keep that CAFTA and FTAA going. Pretty soon all your buddies like the one at Enron will be giving you an addl Million towards your campaign.

SUPERBADD75

· #14 · Mar 26, 2004

QUOTE (Highlander @ Mar 26 2004, 03:30 PM)
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

Wow, you make in the top 5% of all incomes? You must, if Kerry's plans to role back tax cuts to the rich are going to affect you...

actually, Kerry's idea of "rich" is a household income of over 50k a year. that's not rich by any means. my HHI is more, and we still have troubles some days. Kerry is a bad idea, guys and gals. i urge you to vote Bush if you want to continue to have money in your pockets.

cyboexpo2002

· #15 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by SUPERBADD75@Mar 26 2004, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Highlander @ Mar 26 2004, 03:30 PM)
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

Wow, you make in the top 5% of all incomes? You must, if Kerry's plans to role back tax cuts to the rich are going to affect you...

Click to expand...

actually, Kerry's idea of "rich" is a household income of over 50k a year. that's not rich by any means. my HHI is more, and we still have troubles some days. Kerry is a bad idea, guys and gals. i urge you to vote Bush if you want to continue to have money in your pockets.

The top 5% comes out to making more than $300k a year...

MelvinJ

· #16 · Mar 26, 2004

Originally posted by GTOken@Mar 26 2004, 04:57 PM
If American want to keep jobs here how about trying this old concept.... competition.... match the wages and I will garantee you the jobs will stay here.

Be sure that we match environmental regulations, child-labor laws, and safety regulations too, or it's not a level playing field.

If we are going to put the burden of these regulations on our own manufacturers (and I think we should, for the most part), we shouldn't allow any goods into the country that weren't manufacturered under the same or stricter regulations. Otherwise, we are going to sink domestic manufacturers.

gmwsag

· #17 · Mar 27, 2004

Ouch...here we go again..bringing up the politics topic. I am not surprised the UAW has endorsed Kerry. Actually, I'm excited, and anxious. I think Election 2004 is going to be a close one (guess what party I'm in)

Highlander

· #18 · Mar 27, 2004

Originally posted by MMS+Mar 26 2004, 04:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MMS @ Mar 26 2004, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Highlander@Mar 26 2004, 03:30 PM
Personally, I'm annoyed when union leaders push their views on their members like this. I hope the Union members think (and vote) for themselves. And I'd have to say that this choice doesn't really make that much sense to me. Not that either candidate would be the perfect choice, but I know I don't like the idea of my taxes going up!

Wow, you make in the top 5% of all incomes? You must, if Kerry's plans to role back tax cuts to the rich are going to affect you... [/b][/quote]
Wow...good job buying into the propaganda.
For one thing.... The economic policies impletemented by an administration often take about 3-7 years for the full effects to work their way into a more full effect of the economy we have to live with....Therefore our current economic situation is thanks to the second term of the Clinton Administration and we're just starting to feel the effects of the Bush admin. Granted, each policy made effects the econ in different rates and in different ways. For me to completely blame or praise either Bush or Clinton is foolish. Also, if taxes of the big companies and the rich get higher that sounds like good incentive to me for them to do even more overseas. While I don't agree with the extent of the current administrations spending I think we were all pretty happy to see less cash being taken out of our paychecks! And if you think Kerry's tax increase will stop at the top 5% it's my opinion that you'll find that to be untrue. I also know that the owner of the company I work for is sharing the wealth with his employees best he can....and if he gets taxed more, I get paid less. Lower taxation is good for business, and if I ruled the world

I'd say everyone's first 25k in pay is tax free... after that everyone pays the same percentage... The more you make the more tax you pay, but you're not penalized for hard work and trying to get ahead in life. My view is not to vote for the guy that will give me the most, but to vote for the guy that will let me keep the most of what I worked for!.....now rip away on my views... I'm looking forward to it!

See less See more

banzai79

· #19 · Mar 27, 2004

Yeah, I think we shouldn't pay any taxes and continue to raise the national debt so sky high that home mortgage rates are 25% and the economy goes into super-bad recession mode. That's pure genius right there. Fix the economy by breaking it. Who needs a real budget? Just throw an asterisk in there, heck, Reagan did! Numbers are for those namby-pamby democrats!

Darn those stupid blue collar workers buying consumer goods and keeping us all employed!!! I hate my job! I want to see breadlines, now that sounds like a good time!

It's too bad for us that this Kerry jerk is a moderate, but too bad for him we'll all label him a total left-whacko! Score one for us! We're so right-wing (read, borderline fascist) that it's actually true! Compared to us a moderate IS a total left-wing whacko!

In short, vote for George "Six-Shooter" Bush for Prez-o-dent! If we all band together, I know this country can make it's quadrillionaires into bazillionaires!

:lol:

See less See more

GM_Guy81

· #20 · Mar 27, 2004

^^^ and you say right wingers are blinded by ideology??????

Listen, this really isnt all that difficult to understand.

When you have tax cuts, more money goes back to the public. After all, its their money to begin with. Now, as has happened with this tax cut, when people get money back, they tend to spend it. Follow me so far?

Now, when people spend money, it stimulates the economy. When the economy is stimulated, incomes usually go up. When incomes go up, and people are spending more, and the economy is plugging along, the government GETS MORE TAX REVENUE. not through raising taxes, but simply because there is increased money getting exchanged.

Still with me? I know its complex...

The economy is cyclical. What means that it goes in cycles. ok? If you think we had surpluses under clinton because of any great thing he did, you're ignorant. The simple fact of the matter is, that the economy was in a huge up cycle. Stimulated by the dot.com boom. Now, all a surplus is is projected income - budget expenses. In essence, a surplus means that the government through taxes is going to take in more than it plans to spend. Ok then, when the dot.com (and most of the tech sector) blew up, the economy went into recession. Now, if the economy is producing the way it was forcasted to, that means the government isnt going to take in the expected amount. Hence, no surplus.

The point of all of this is that through tax cuts, the government will actually take in more money in the long run. This will help provide funds to pay down the debt (assuming spending isnt raised proportionally).

Now, Kerry is not moderate. Im not sure where you get that idea. He has a more liberal voting record than ted kennedy. That is quite a feat. I think that is pretty much the definition of left wing.

That aside, lets consider the arguement that Kerry is only going to repeal the tax break for the top 5%. That would yeild about $650 billion in "savings" over 10 years. Sounds good right? Well Kerry has proposed new spending (including his health care plan) of 1.7 trillion over the same 10 years.. Hmmmm. Lets see 1.7Trillion - 650 billion = 1.05 trillion of new spending not covered by his "tax increase on the rich".
Now, where do you think that 1.05 trillion is going to come from? I would have to think that its all of us!!

Now, lets put that in perpective. $1.7 trillion is more than the annual economic output for all of France, and $1.7 trillion in new government spending will cost each American household an average of $15,500.

I dont know about you, but i think thats alot of money for average middle class families.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.