  Mopardan Member Username: Mopardan Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2008 |
But I do know something about Alabama... Just reading about what you Detroiters & Michiganites write on here, I gather things are very tough up there. The economic mess in addition to the Auto Industry debacle no doubt has compounded things beyond belief. To be quite honest, I'm not a big Pro-Union guy, but fully understand that it's due to the efforts of organizations like the UAW, US Steelworkers, etc that helped create weekends, safety in the workplace & finally, the driving force to launch the middle class in this country. On the flipside, they became somewhat drunk on their gains, have suffered loss of membership & garnered a very bad public image. In some cases they have forced some companies out of business or driven them into the south. That being said & realizing a GOP memo was sent out to Senators before the House vote to go after Labor specifically, it raises some even more disconcerting things. For instance, Shelby was the driving force against this loan. Do some quick searches & you will discover(or already know!), that Alabama ranks in the bottom ten on just about everything. I'm sure many of you know about Lyndon Johnson or LBJ as we call him down here. It's often been said that his aim was to bring Texas up to the standard of living in the US through his "Great Society" & "War on Poverty" effort. True, it was full of holes & probably not thought out as well as it should have been. I don't agree with how programs such as welfare meant to help people, is abused so you get money for doing nothing. However, I do agree with the vision of presenting the lowest of society a shot at the American Dream. Now, back to my point. People like Shelby keep getting elected in places like Alabama because they know how to manipulate a largely ignorant public. The conditions in the country at this time are bad enough, particularly with the job reports as of late. The Shelbys of the south will use the anti-union card, & play on people's emotions with calls of "Patriotism" & labeling anyone who disagrees with them a "Bleeding Heart Liberal". The scary thing is, it works. Very effectively I should say. Ron on here is from the south as well & he can attest to it. The games Shelby & his cohorts(Corker in particular) pulled by targeting labor instead of calling for across-the-board cuts should(notice I wrote "should") be a wake up call for the rest of the nation. There are people who will blindly follow this type of leader & allow him to bring the rest of the country down to the level of Alabama. The Midwest & Northeast need to get their act together quickly as far as governing & business diversification. The unions need to be smarter about how they run their organizations & repair their image. Look at the demographic trends; they undoubtedly show the south is growing at an alarming rate compared to the rest of the country. Yes, I want my own state to be prosperous & present opportunities, but not at the expense of the manufacturing & industrial base of this country. I also don't want the nation to be on the same level as an Alabama either. Sorry for getting on the soapbox but after talking with a good friend of mine about the fallout & how it was led by a few backwater state politicians, I had to say something. Good luck to y'all & have a good weekend. (Message edited by MoparDan on December 13, 2008) | ||
Urbanophile Member Username: Urbanophile Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2008 |
Shelby is pretty strongly anti-bailout across the board. He's not singling out the auto industry. But you bring up a good point. If Alabama is near the bottom of the US on most performance measures, why would anyone in Alabama support government loans backed by their taxes to bail out auto makers whose workers make more money than they are likely ever to see in a state where the standard of living is already higher than what they enjoy? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 953 Registered: 07-2007 |
I don't expect anyone in Alabama to support bailout loans (while I try to ignore the hypocrisy of Alabama's massive subsidies to the foreigns using tax dollars and that Alabama's a leech when it comes to sucking in federal tax dollars). But I also wouldn't want Alabama to be a model for anything we do here in Michigan. It's a low education, low wage, low income state. It's great for those industries that want to exploit that population to make cheaper goods. But unless you want to be the 21st Century of the backwater, there's not much I see in Alabama that one should want to emulate. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2731 Registered: 08-2007 |
Because there are lots of Alabama workers who depend on auto related jobs as well, like Goodyear and on other manufacturing jobs that are similarly structured. Alabama Auto Mfrs Association for Automakers and suppliers lists 468 members: http://resadmin.uah.edu/aama/m embersalpha2.asp | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2732 Registered: 08-2007 |
Oh, yes, here is Peter Karmanos' letter to Senator Shelby, pretty eye-opening. Alabama gave lots of kumshaw to the automakers but doesn't support government help? 11/17/2008 Dear Senator Shelby: On Sunday, Nov. 16, I watched with great interest "Meet the Press," during which you and Sen. Carl Levin debated the merits of (or, concerning your position, the folly) providing financial aid to America's domestic auto industry. I must admit that I was more than a little taken aback by how out of touch you really are about what Detroit's Big Three automakers have been doing for some time and continue to do to transform their businesses to both survive in today's debilitating economic climate and thrive in the future. The steps have been extremely significant and take it from me — someone who lives and works in the Motor City — incredibly painful as well. Frankly, I could go on for pages in an effort to educate you about these measures, but I think Senator Levin did a good job of providing the high-level facts about these transformation efforts. As the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I can only trust that you will take some time and conduct the proper due diligence before continuing to espouse your inaccuracies. At minimum, I believe the domestic auto industry (and its millions of hardworking, taxpaying employees), which helped make America great, deserve as much. Don't you? The intent of this letter, however, is not to take you to task for the inaccuracy of your comments or for the over-simplicity of your views, but rather to point out the hypocrisy of your position as it relates to Alabama's (the state for which you have served as senator since 1987) recent history of providing subsidies to manufacturing. During the segment on "Meet the Press," you stated that: We don't need government — governmental subsidies for manufacturing in this country. It's the French model, it's the wrong road. We will pay for it. The average American taxpayer is going to pay dearly for this, if I'm not wrong. I trust it is safe to say that when you refer to "government subsidies," you are referring to subsidies provided by both federal and state governments. And if this is in fact true, then I am sure you were adamantly against the State of Alabama offering lucrative incentives (in essence, subsidies) to Mercedes Benz in the early 1990s to lure the German automobile manufacturer to the State. As it turned out, Alabama offered a stunning $253 million incentive package to Mercedes. Additionally, the state also offered to train the workers, clear and improve the site, upgrade utilities, and buy 2,500 Mercedes Benz vehicles. All told, it is estimated that the incentive package totaled anywhere from $153,000 to $220,000 per created job. On top of all this, the state gave the foreign automaker a large parcel of land worth between $250 and $300 million, which was coincidentally how much the company expected to invest in building the plant. With all due respect, Senator, where was your outrage when all this was going on? Perhaps on principal you did disagree with your colleagues in the Alabama State Government over these subsidies, but I don't recall you ever going out and publicly decrying Alabama's subsidization strategy. I certainly don't recall you going in front of the nation (as you did this past Sunday) to discuss what a big mistake Alabama was making in providing subsidies to Mercedes Benz. If you had, however, you could have talked about how, applying free market principles, Alabama shouldn't have had to resort to subsidies to land Mercedes Benz. Competitively speaking, if Alabama had been the strongest candidate under consideration (i.e. highest quality infrastructure, workforce, research and development facilities, business climate, etc.), then subsidies shouldn't have been required. The fact is that Alabama knew that, on a level playing field, it could not compete with the other states under consideration and, thus, to lure the German car builder to the state, it offered the aforementioned unprecedented subsidies. In effect, Alabama — your state — did exactly what you said government should not do: provide subsidies for manufacturing. It's no great mystery why Alabama politicians went to such dramatic anti-free-market measures to secure Mercedes Benz — they did it for the betterment of their state through job creation and increased tax revenues. And who could blame them? Is that so different than what would occur by providing financial aid to help rescue the domestic auto industry? Such aid would save millions of jobs and millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. Additionally, unlike the giveaways Alabama bestowed upon the foreign automaker in question, United States taxpayers would be reimbursed with interest (as they were when Chrysler received government aid in the early 1980s) for their investment in what is clearly a critically important industry for America’s present and future. Best Regards, Peter Karmanos, Jr. Chairman and CEO Compuware Corporation http://www.uaw.org/auto/11_25_ 08auto1.cfm | ||
Jfk Member Username: Jfk Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2008 |
Shelby doesn't want taxes from Alabama to bail out Michigan auto companies,but its Michigan's taxes that have been bailing out Alabama for years.What Shelby fails to mention is that for every $1.00 that Alabama sends to the feds they get $1.71 back,whereas for every dollar Michigan sends, we get back 85 cents. Alabama's tax burden on the Federal Government ranks 9th in the country, Michigan ranks 46th.Alabama's tax burden to the Feds ranks 43rd,Michigan ranks 20th. Michigan and many other states are "Donor" states that have been bailing out this Welfare State called "Alabama" for years.Its high time we get some of that tax money back that we have been shortchanged on for far too long | ||
Sumas Member Username: Sumas Post Number: 425 Registered: 01-2008 |
Thank you for sharing Karmanos' letter. It was right on target and very well written. I already thought highly of him and his family, now he is damn near on a pedestal. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5959 Registered: 08-2004 |
Wasn't the state motto of Alabama "At least we're not Mississippi"? | ||
Bosch Member Username: Bosch Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2008 |
Daimler has Shelby in its pocket. This is more about Daimler wanting to clean up after the Detroit firms go under than AL vs MI. If GM and Chrysler go under, Daimler has a chance to take on Japan for world auto supremacy. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 2922 Registered: 07-2007 |
mopar dan, I know what you mean and a lot of what you say rings true, I am not a fan of unions by any means. Politicians play on local issues to get reelected. That being said, as the old Chinese adage goes, be careful what you ask for. If Michigan manufacturing goes down, so will Bama's. So will retirees going to Florida, Arizona, Alabama, etc. If so, the money will flow overseas and the US as a whole will see less benefits from the recycling of profits going to local businesses as the ripple effect will send shock waves when one of these behemoths go down. Wait until the next wave of manufacturing hits the US and Alabama and all the non union states get hit with the next low cost producer. Look at the textile mills and electronic industries. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 2923 Registered: 07-2007 |
mopar dan, I know what you mean and a lot of what you say rings true, I am not a fan of unions by any means. Politicians play on local issues to get reelected. That being said, as the old Chinese adage goes, be careful what you ask for. If Michigan manufacturing goes down, so will Bama's. So will retirees going to Florida, Arizona, Alabama, etc stop moving down there with there pensions and real estate will be hit hard. If the big three fail the money will flow overseas and the US as a whole will see less benefits from the recycling of profits going to local businesses as the ripple effect will send shock waves when one or more of these behemoths go down. Wait until the next wave of manufacturing hits the US and Alabama and all the non union states get hit with the next low cost producer. Look at the textile mills and electronic industries. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5015 Registered: 06-2004 |
"If GM and Chrysler go under, Daimler has a chance to take on Japan for world auto supremacy." Not a chance. With as wide open as the US market is Mercedes captured less than 2% of it in November while Toyota, Honda, and Nissan combined got 34%. Hyundai, Kia, Madza, VW, and the BMW Group also all sold more and Subaru was less than 400 units behind. | ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 453 Registered: 01-2004 |
This is about the heavy manufacturing base of the United States of America. I don't care where you live. No U.S. auto only helps our downfall as a nation meaning in 30 years we can't afford the Civics and Camerys, we because we don't produce anything but CONSUMERS. Guess how long a nation of consumers lasts? After we can't afford Japanese cars, they're no longer built here. Bottom line. Then we lose. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 581 Registered: 04-2008 |
Not only do I think the rest of the country will get as poor as Alabama, but I think the US will come close to being a third world country. We cannot be prosperous without a manufacturing base. The reason foreign auto-makers have moved to the States is because they have been forced to by the US government. Once our domestic auto-makers are gone, the transplants can pack up and leave. Take that Alabama! | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5016 Registered: 06-2004 |
They weren't forced to, they were smart enough to. They realized that if they kept importing everything there would be a backlash that would kill the market for them. Now Toyota and Honda have developed good faith with some Americans while still importing almost half of what they sell here. Most Americans don't even realize they import that much. The other new false PR spin I've seen arise recently is claiming the US makers import from overseas - Russia and China specifically mentioned - as if they were the 'foreign' threat. | ||
Urbanophile Member Username: Urbanophile Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2008 |
You won't hear me defend the incredible giveaways these states are handing out to foreign auto manufacturers. Did you see what Tennessee gave VW for that plant in Chattanoogna? It was unbelievable. Still, when you rank 49 out of 50 or wherever on most measures of prosperity, it is easy to see why people would try for silver bullet solutions like auto plants. As for federal spending, I think a lot of that is driven by the military. Most military bases are in the South and Southwest. OTOH, I speculate that a higher percentage of Southerners than elsewhere serve in the military. The fact is, the era in which manufacturing provided large number of middle class jobs to unskilled labor is over. You can cry about it, but that's the fact. It's as true in Alabama as it is in Michigan. One thing that struck me was a report that last year Indiana had its highest every total manufacturing value added output. That's right, Indiana is pumping out record amounts of manufacturing value. It just doesn't take the number of workers it used to and they aren't paid as well. Indiana produces as much steel output as ever (it's the #1 steel producing state) with 1/10 of the peak employment. So don't think manufacturing is dying in the US. We still make things. Lots of them. It just takes a lot fewer workers and they don't get paid as much. IIRC, the US is still the world's #1 manufacturer. |
