It would be interesting to total all the types and forms of subsidies given to foreign automakers to get them to build their plants in the South.

Free land, eminent domain seizures, low rate loans, reduced or completely forgiven taxes, road construction necessitated by plant construction, energy generation and transmission systems, and I am sure a closer look would reveal a myriad of other types of corporate welfare.

Typical, use simplistic rants or BS to fool the rubes and focus their uninformed beliefs on an enemy, the Unions.

This is a national security issue. During WWI and WWII every manufacturing facility in the United States was converted to wartime use. Just how would the United States of America respond to a security crisis without the manufacturing facilities and knowledge to build mechanized units? Should we buy them from our enemies? And do Republicans honestly think our enemies would sell us the equipment necessary to defeat them?

Are Republicans seriously willing to liquidate a national asset that could be critical for survival in the event of an all-out war? Shall we shut down our steel industry too?

Are they *insane*?

HTWW: "I'm with Barney Frank on this one: No one asked the rank-and-file employees of Citigroup or AIG or Morgan-Stanley to cut their salaries in exchange for government handouts. Assembly-line workers at GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, must tighten their belts."

The fundamental question regarding a GM and Chrysler bailout is whether the funds will enable a restructuring that can transform US automakers into competitive and profitable companies in a global marketplace. It is simply a fact that higher labor costs put GM and Chrysler at a competitive disadvantage. That said, this is one of many problems. Simply put, current management has been terrible and needs to go. Bring in new talent with new ideas.

On the other hand, Citi, AIG, and Morgan Stanley have a unique set of problems. One problem they do not have is excessive labor costs among the rank-and-file that prohibit them from competing successfully around the world. That’s why no one asked them to cut rank-and-file salaries in exchange for government handouts. Executive compensation is another subject entirely.

Uh oh we screwed up... Who should we blame?

hahaha. like you could trust republicans even after you bought them.

"In October 1980, PATCO [Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization] met with candidate Reagan and explained their issues and concerns to him. He wrote them a letter agreeing to support them and address their concerns if elected. Subsequently, PATCO was one of the very few labor unions that endorsed his candidacy (the others being the Teamsters and the Air Line Pilots Association)." http://www.massnurses.org/labor/education/2006/sept/patco.htm

"Two days after PATCO's illegal Aug. 3, 1981, walkout over pay scales, benefits and working conditions, an angry President ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to fire 11,345 strikers and hire replacements. Only about 500 PATCO members were rehired; the rest are permanently blackballed."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962487,00.html

Remember the Republicans are asking the union to lower their wages from the slavelike $150,000 total compensation to the pyramid-builders wage of $90,000. What Victorian cruelty!!

but if reliability of product were the criteria for keeping the workers' jobs, saving the autoworkers would be waaaaaaay ahead of saving the financial workers. the only industry whose products crash more than the financial industry is consumer digital electronics.

Don't they realize the reason they are making even $24 an hour is because their companies are forced to compete, somewhat, with the Big Three"? What do they think will happen when this backstop is gone? What will happen when China starts making autos for a fraction of what they can make them for?

I realize everyone wants to protect their own interests but they need to understand while someone else's throat is cut today the knife will most likely soon be at their throat. They'll get no sympathy from me.

I remember during the 90's when call centers were being relocated in the south because labor was "cheaper" there. They are now in India, does anyone see a pattern?

The Southern Republicans are licking their chops at the thought of the UAW being brought to its knees. After all, if that happens, there is little chance that the non-union workers in southern auto plants will make a big push to bring in the unions...and that means more foreign car manufacturers will scout the South for plant locations.

Think about it - if the Detroit Big 3 goes under, next to no one will buy cars from an automaker in bankruptcy...so where will people buy cars? From foreign car makers, many of whom have plants here in the US. And those plants are almost without exception located in the South.

The Southern Republicans' self-interest is showing. Rather than attempt to save 3 million jobs all over the US, they would rather piss on the UAW. What a bunch of sweethearts.

This isn't against the "working class" it's about the UAW specifically

Baloney.

Cheap-labor conservative Republicans have fought tooth and nail against every improvement in the lot of the average American. That's why there's so much poverty in America.

You can't be so stupid as to not know that, so you're obviously lying.

This isn't war against the "working class" it's punishment against the UAW specifically, and the UAW asked for it. If unions were apolitical, sore loser Republicans wouldn't be gunning for them now. Now it's payback time.

Since at least the 1930s, the Republican Party has done everything it could to undermine unions and, more broadly speaking, the right of all people to earn a living wage. This anti-worker posture is much more constant in the party's history than its reliance on the religious right, which only came along with Reagan. Anyone who is surprised by their recent actions hasn't been paying attention.

My take on this is exactly opposite the Republican senators'. The UAW did its job well - to get the best possible deal it could for its members. Management, however, was derelict in its duty, which was to agree only to what it thought was sustainable for the long term. Why? Although I try never to underestimate incompetence, I think the bigshots always thought that they were "too big to fail," and that the government would come to their rescue when times got hard. So it was easier to placate even unreasonable union demands than to go through the unpleasantness of a strike. After all, they could always count on the taxpayers.

But of course, you won't hear Republicans demanding the resignation of the top tier of executives in return for government help. Those are God's people, after all, not the great unwashed on the assembly lines.