Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060906/BUSINESS01/609060308" target="_blank">http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060906/BUSINESS01/609060308</a> He's afraid it will spotlight the sagging economy and thousands of layoffs before the election, because he wants to create the fallacy the economy is gangbusters.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy OMG your back spreading more of your Republican views and stories about the guy you voted for.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Hey, those 80,000 people scheduled to be laid off very soon, 30,000 Ford & GM 50,000 are just lazy good for nothings who are getting what they deserve. Those companies owe them nothing. If they have any attitude whatsoever they can all become rich in other jobs that are everywhere...or apply to be a CEO. again thought I'd save us all the time Wouldn't want to address those kind of slugs as they might blow a hole in the economy is robust sales pitch. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/12/07/ford-layoffs-cisco-cx_ab_1207video2.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/markets/ 2005/12/07/ford-layoffs-cisco-cx_ab_1207video2.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<He's afraid it will spotlight the sagging economy and thousands of layoffs before the election, because he wants to create the fallacy the economy is gangbusters.>> Sure. Are you telling us it's Bush's fault that these automakers are laying people off? Or are you hoping the reat of the country is as stupid as you to think this?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<He's afraid it will spotlight the sagging economy and thousands of layoffs before the election, because he wants to create the fallacy the economy is gangbusters.>> Sure. Are you telling us it's Bush's fault that these automakers are laying people off? Or are you hoping the reat of the country is as stupid as you to think this? < again when it comes to stupidity, you carry the baton in the parade. Did I say it was Bush's fault ? NO -- show me where I did. You need to seriously take a reading course. What I said is the the condition of the auto industry, and the coming lay off of another 80,000 workers belies the rose colored glasses view of the economy you and you fellow goofs share. Is that clear enough for ya ?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Hey, those 80,000 people scheduled to be laid off very soon, 30,000 Ford & GM 50,000 are just lazy good for nothings who are getting what they deserve.>> These layoffs are the fault of the unions, pension plans and expensive health plans. Oh, the cars they make have not been that great either. But you guys go ahead and lie. Go ahead and say it's Bush's fault. Go ahead and pretend the layoffs have nothing to do with the reasons I stated above. Oh the things you learned in school.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But you guys go ahead and lie. Go ahead and say it's Bush's fault. Go ahead and pretend the layoffs have nothing to do with the reasons I stated above. Oh the things you learned in school. < at least we learned the art of reading comprehension in school. No one said there aren't other reasons for their plight...but for Bush and his team to ignore that this is a serious issue for the economy is nuts..... Again no one said their issue was caused by Bush -- read read read
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Best Factoid of the Day: “We believe that the impact of housing on consumer spending has been exaggerated by some commentators. Over the last year, the increase in real disposable income (+ $205 billion) has matched the increase in real consumer spending (+ $188 billion). Strong real wage gains are the major factor driving consumer spending increases. –John Ryding, chief US economist at Bear Stearns
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Again no one said their issue was caused by Bush -- read read read>> You didn't say that but the original poster is trying to hint this is a problem for Bush, as if he needs to be ashamed of a red hot economy with the lowest unemployment rate in years. As if people will think that the layoffs at the automakers are the result of Bush being president. It's just more bogus crap from the little bitter people with no ideas. Bush needs to talk about the economy every day and brag about how far we have come since the Clinton recession and 9-11.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 and this impacts Ford and GM how ? The topic here was failing to address the auto workers....and ignoring the fact that laying off 80,000 people is a bad thing for any economy... no one attacked Bush and said he caused it....so for being wrong and jumping off in the wrong direction, and calling me stupid for something I didnt say inpost 4, I guess the proper response is just to change gears. so I'll ask you politely; Why wouldn't the President want to address so many of the middle class of America by talking to the auto companies and their employees in a time when they could use support ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You didn't say that but the original poster is trying to hint this is a problem for Bush, as if he needs to be ashamed of a red hot economy with the lowest unemployment rate in years. < that's right, you just assumed you know everything and know what I was thinking. I am not an idiot and I know the issues that have hindered our automative companies. What I blame Bush for is sticking his head in the sand and pretending this doesn't exist. <As if people will think that the layoffs at the automakers are the result of Bush being president. It's just more bogus crap from the little bitter people with no ideas< Once again, aside from you , who has said this here ? Answer - no one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you just assumed you know everything and know what I was thinking.> Kinda like the way you assumed Beaumandy was talking about you when he clearly was responding to SPP. <What I blame Bush for is sticking his head in the sand and pretending this doesn't exist.> He's not doing that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Kinda like the way you assumed Beaumandy was talking about you when he clearly was responding to SPP. < you mean the way you assume post #3 was for post #2. I was typing post #3 in response to post 1 -- when Beau was typing his -- so you'd be wrong there also. And my next post was in response to being called stupid in post 4 -- so be careful what you assume also- as you'd be wrong in this one
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<What I blame Bush for is sticking his head in the sand and pretending this doesn't exist.> He's not doing that. < explain how he's not doing that ? For something as large for the US economy as that, tell me how he has addressed it at all. When Toyota passed GM as the world's largets automaker...was there any cause for concern then, or just stay away from the topic because it could make the economy look bad, or the state of some major American compnaies look bad...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How do we know Bush wasn't busy or he had other things to do? He isn't speaking at my kids school. OMG!!! He must be afraid to face the teachers because his No child left behind program wasn't funded! Doomed!!!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << When Toyota passed GM as the world's largets automaker...was there any cause for concern then, or just stay away from the topic because it could make the economy look bad, or the state of some major American compnaies look bad...>> Toyota makes a better car, they run their company better and a lot of the cars they make are made in AMERICA. GM is stuck with stone age pension plans ( they are on the hook for BILLIONS from these pensions ), greedy unions and expensive health care plans. In 2006 you either get rid of these anchors or you go out of business. But STPH only wants to blame Bush.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Amazing, indeed. These aren't just any hole-in-the-wall businesses; these are icons of American industry. And being that they are so high-profile, they are viewed as barometers for the state of the economy by the majority of the public. In the minds of the American worker, if American giants like Intel, Ford and GM are taking such hits, who will be next? It just makes the economy look even more unstable. And that is exactly why Bush should address the issue—besides, of course, the compassionate conservative in him.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Question. Exactly what is BUSH supposed to do for these companies even if he meets them in the morning? They made their bed in the free market, why should Bush or the Government bail them out? I go back to self accountability.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you mean the way you assume post #3 was for post #2.> No, not that way at all. I never assumed post #3 was for post #2. <my next post was in response to being called stupid in post 4> You weren't called stupid in post 4. (Not that I believe anyone should be calling anyone stupid).
