An Executive Branch Assault on the Constitution

posted by John Nichols on 12/17/2006 @ 11:01am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (139)

Subscribe Now

The Bush Administration's Department of Defense is examining whether it has the power to break a strike at tire plants that supply the military.

The Constitution affords the executive branch no such authority. But, as should be obvious by now, the current Administration has little regard for the founding document.

"The US Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas in the face of a looming shortage of tires for Humvee trucks and other military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan," reported the Financial Times on December 15. "A strike involving 17,000 members of the United Steelworkers union has crippled 16 Goodyear plants in the US and Canada since October 5."

This is no small matter, as a similar dispute in the early 1950s provoked one of the most significant constitutional crises of modern times.

In April 1952, when a dispute between the nation's steel companies and the United Steel Workers of America union threatened to disrupt production at more than eighty steel mills, President Harry Truman issued an executive order that the plants be seized.

The President argued that he had the power to do so because the country was engaged in the Korean War, claiming that he acted "by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States."

Truman had an expansive view of executive powers during wartime, as was evidenced during his April 17, 1952, press conference, where a reporter asked: "Mr. President, if you can seize the steel mills under your inherent powers, can you, in your opinion, also seize the newspapers and, or, the radio stations?"

"Under similar circumstances," claimed Truman, "the President of the United States has to act for whatever is for the best of the country. That's the answer to your question."

In fact, Truman was wrong on both political and constitutional grounds. As with the current Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the Korean fight had been entered into without a declaration of war by Congress--the bloody conflict was described vaguely as a "police action." Even if a declaration of war had been made, there was little reason to believe that Truman had the authority that he said was his. Without such a declaration, there was no question that he was claiming powers that were not his to exercise.

Republican members of Congress, led by Ohioan George Bender, moved to impeach Truman. Bender declared, "I do not believe that our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discretion to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private enterprise in the name of 'emergency.'"

The articles of impeachment against Truman that were submitted by Bender drew national attention, and support from publications such as the Chicago Tribune. As the drive picked up steam--with Illinois Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen telling a national radio audience that Congress had a responsibility to act--the Supreme Court quickly announced that it would take up the matter.

A court consisting of Justices appointed by Truman and his Democratic predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, forced Truman to back down. The ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) explicitly restricted the authority of the President to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated powers under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority approved by the Congress.

"The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times," Justice Hugo Black wrote, on behalf of the court's majority. "It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand."

In his brilliant concurrence, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, "A constitutional democracy like ours is perhaps the most difficult of man's social arrangements to manage successfully. Our scheme of society is more dependent than any other form of government on knowledge and wisdom and self-discipline for the achievement of its aims. For our democracy implies the reign of reason on the most extensive scale. The Founders of this Nation were not imbued with the modern cynicism that the only thing that history teaches is that it teaches nothing. They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature. It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power, if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the power of governors over the governed. To that end they rested the structure of our central government on the system of checks and balances. For them the doctrine of separation of powers was not mere theory; it was a felt necessity."

Noting the recent struggle against German fascism, Frankfurter argued that the wisdom of the Founders had been confirmed. "Not so long ago it was fashionable to find our system of checks and balances obstructive to effective government. It was easy to ridicule that system as outmoded--too easy," the Justice explained. "The experience through which the world has passed in our own day has made vivid the realization that the Framers of our Constitution were not inexperienced doctrinaires. These long-headed statesmen had no illusion that our people enjoyed biological or psychological or sociological immunities from the hazards of concentrated power.... The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."

Frankfurter's words ring true across history to address the current circumstance, as do those of George Bender and the members of the House whose move to impeach Truman highlighted the need for judicial intervention: "our people [cannot] tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discretion to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private enterprise in the name of 'emergency.'"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (139)

"our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discretion to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private enterprise in the name of ‘emergency.'"

this surely must have read: our people CANNOT tolerate...

fine post, terrible editing, c'mon Nation people, you need some proofreading services, for the right price I'm available, I spend most of my time here anyway.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 12:20pm
That fact that a union is willing to strike a company that produces parts our military needs is enough for me to insist they make the military parts and strike the rest if a strike is what they deide...I can't think of any srike that has ever made up in more bennys than what was lost in the strike,...but to strike the whole plant and screw the guys getting shot at ..well, the unions should be shot at in a legal kind of gun..no striking any military necessity supplier...should be no arguement.

For me, this is more evidence of the inherent need to kill off the unions and pay based on performance, not attendance...even in scholl perfect attendance wasn't a grade....

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 12:26pm
so here is our gov't, the gov't of both workers and bosses, resorting to force to get its way, and incidentally come to the aid of the bosses and the corporations.

there is another way. how about sending in teams of mediators and try to put an end to the strike by negotiations, to achieve an agreement, which might not make everyone happy, would at least leave both sides equally unhappy, which is incidentally the definition of a successful negotiation.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 12:26pm
Nation,

Hire JR..he has better insights than most of you here anyway and has better common sense..and it is a double dose of embarassment for you at the Nation, since his mother tongue is GERMAN...jeeez

Sorry, JR, I probably killed off your chances of being hired(they need it) now that I support your services..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 12:29pm
Ich bin spat......bald zuruck..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 12:30pm
osted by JOHN MAASCH 12/17/2006 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

so you're asking the workers to make a sacrifice for the war, when no sacrifice is asked of anyone else except the troops and their families. or you just see this as an opportunity to bash unions. the workers are just like you, they want to make a decent buck.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 12:36pm
Maasch, you're killing me... with kindness.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 12:37pm
.no striking any military necessity supplier...should be no arguement.

the supreme court has obviously decided otherwise.

it takes two to make a strike, bosses and workers. why not lean on the corporation and the bosses instead, and order THEM to give in?

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 12:40pm
If John Nichols thinks he is going to HURT George W. Bush....

by comparing him to HARRY TRUMAN!?!??!?....

he's really lost it!

Posted by Mask at 12/17/2006 @ 1:36pm
BTW, little history lesson for Mr Nichols...

Truman, that "evil exploiter of labor and friend of management and Big Business"....

VETOED "Taft-Hartley" and called it a "slave labor act".

Posted by Mask at 12/17/2006 @ 1:44pm
Yet another example of why Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush are committed to an open-ended war - even going so far as having to create one. Under our system of government, the president traditionally is able to usurp powers which in peace time would meet with stiff opposition. Only a cursory glance at the powers assumed by the Executive Branch since March '03 is needed to bear this out. A dictatorship is the logical conclusion to power concentrated in one person. War is the vehicle to accomplish it.

Posted by felicity at 12/17/2006 @ 2:50pm
this is more evidence of the inherent need to kill off the unions

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/17/2006 @ 12:26am

Have you been paying attention during the last 30 or so years? Your wish has been coming true.

But, it's probably why the majority of poeple today are not enjoying our "robust" economy. And the pundits scratch their heads and wonder why people are not giving the economy a thumbs up. duh.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/17/2006 @ 3:06pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/17/2006 @ 12:36am

Allow me to pile on the niceties; JR this is the whole truth. Not only are your prose skills fine, so is your logic.

CEO's at war related industries are raking in millions. Millions!!! That should be a cause for war profiteering investigations, if we had a real congress. If the work these people do making tires is that important, PAY THEM!!

As for the constitution: "it is just a God-damned piece of paper"- George W. Bush.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 3:12pm
Or, we could hire Halliburton to make the tires in china. We would get tires that last 1/2 the time, are squared off, all at cost plus with no--bid contracts.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 3:15pm
China to Buy 4 Westinghouse Nuclear Reactors

By KEITH BRADSHER Published: December 18, 2006 HONG KONG, Dec. 17 -- China will buy four Westinghouse nuclear reactors in a deal that shows the continued attractiveness of American technology, but may also stir worries in Washington that the United States is selling its competitive advantage an industry at a time.

Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman of the United States and Ma Kai, the minister of China's National Development and Reform Commission, signed a memorandum of understanding for the reactors in in Beijing on Saturday. The deal calls for the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation to buy the reactors from the Westinghouse Electric Company, which the Toshiba Corporation, based in Tokyo, bought earlier this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/business/worldbusiness/17cnd-nuclear.h tml?ex=1324098000&en=b05fa83917de61d7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

We don't even own Westinghouse anymore? Do the rest of you hear that flushing sound?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 3:16pm
For me, this is more evidence of the inherent need to kill off the unions and pay based on performance, not attendance...even in scholl perfect attendance wasn't a grade....

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/17/2006 @ 12:26am

Do you have evidence that the people that actually make the tires that the troops roll on are NOT performing their job?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 3:31pm
"Median 2005 pay among chief executives running most of the nation's 100 largest companies soared 25% to $17.9 million, dwarfing the 3.1% average gain by typical American workers, USA TODAY found in its annual analysis of CEO pay."...

"Coming off 2004's 25% jump in big-company CEO pay, the sharp rise in executive compensation perplexes corporate governance experts who expected temperance following scandals at Enron, WorldCom and Tyco, increasing scrutiny by regulators and shareholder activists, and starting this year, new accounting rules requiring expensing of stock options."

-----

Meanwhile, wages for the rest of us showed a minor tick up this year, after a 3 year stall. How about some shared sacrifice in these times of illegal war. How about sharing the wealth that the workers create?

How many people here, other than me, actually make something for a living?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 3:51pm
I think John Nichols is juming the gun on this one. Goodyear isn't the only tire manufacturer we have, there's always Firestone....hehehehe

All that strike talk would cease if the Pentagon says "we're taking our business some place else!"

That would really get Goodyear's attention and the WH wouldn't be involved.

Posted by ACook at 12/17/2006 @ 3:54pm
Crabbie, I think JR does....

"How many people here, other than me, actually make something for a living?"

Posted by CRABWALK 12/17/2006 @ 3:51pm

Posted by ACook at 12/17/2006 @ 3:55pm
the union is the most common sense measure of enlightened self interest in which a working class slob can involve himself. if anything, strong unions are the sign of a healthy capitalism, in that profits are so great the worker must demand of management something resembling a fair shake.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2006 @ 5:25pm
"our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discretion to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private enterprise in the name of ‘emergency.'"

this surely must have read: our people CANNOT tolerate...

fine post, terrible editing, c'mon Nation people, you need some proofreading services, for the right price I'm available, I spend most of my time here anyway.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/17/2006 @ 12:20am

This is what I see. Was this how the original read or was it changed:

Bender declared, "I do not believe that our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discretion to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private enterprise in the name of 'emergency.'"

Posted by fromredbird at 12/17/2006 @ 5:38pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/17/2006 @ 3:54pm

Excuse me, but Nichols is jumping the gun? You put forth a logical solution, though, as Nichols writes, the Army is NOT taking your suggestion. Probably why Nichols wrote a post about it.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/17/2006 @ 6:02pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/17/2006 @ 3:54pm

Excellent thinking there, Acook.

Unfortunately, there is one small flaw in your thinking...Bridgestone bought out Firestone years ago. Besides, do you really want the miltary rolling on tires made by the manufacturer with more defective tire recalls/lawsuits, than any other?

Seriously though, I think you are on the right track with that kind of idea. There are many alternatives to the presidents idea. I think Felicity hit the nail on the head. This "war" is a war of power consolidation.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2006 @ 6:08pm
"But, it's probably why the majority of poeple today are not enjoying our "robust" economy. "

ridiculious notion in the 21st century..unions are job killers...today we musty be creative and flexible...the very opposite of what unions are ..

Unions were necessary at one time but are no longer...to be paid on a fixed scale is not in the best interest of any worker or the company, rather being paid as part of the entire result is much more profitable..profits raise, then we share accross the board, proits fall,(bad year) we don't strike the company and make it worse..manage held TOTALLY accountable for management errors.

evidence? Airline pilots, after buying a portion of the airline itself, strike the airline when their demands were not met...the increase they want comes from the bottm line..when they and other unions strike their own bottom line, it lowers the pool of profits they are aiming to tap into...who gets screwed? The people who have tickets on the airlines....

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 6:45pm
Crab,

"Do you have evidence that the people that actually make the tires that the troops roll on are NOT performing their job?"

No, that is not the issue...the issue is should they(unions striking) be allowed to and can the President or Congress for that matter, order them back to work..or can the govt take over the company? Serious stuff..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 6:48pm
"Bridgestone bought out Firestone years ago. Besides, do you really want the miltary rolling on tires made by the manufacturer with more defective tire recalls/lawsuits, than any other?"

Do you want to fly a fighter build by the lowest bidder? Or do you want no bid contracts? can't have it both ways..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 6:49pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/17/2006 @ 6:49pm

What does cost have to do with quality?

When did I state any either or propositions?

Did Firestone make your brain? (Did you miss the recall notice?)

What are you talking about?

I seem to recall America winning the two big wars on equipment that was bid on. Save your knee-jerk defense for no-bid givaways for when the topic actually comes up. Then I will rip it up.

While there might be comical irony, in watching chimpy's war of choice be fought with defective equipment, there are the troops to consider. And they're already saddled with defective leadership.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2006 @ 7:16pm
A dictatorship is the logical conclusion to power concentrated in one person. War is the vehicle to accomplish it.

Posted by FELICITY 12/17/2006 @ 2:50pm

FELICITY, curious....Can you name another dictator who served only 8 years and left power voluntarily due to a constitutional term limit? Or allowed his opposition to take control of a legislature to prevent him from using his "dictatorial" powers in the last two years of that 8 year term?

I'm racking my brain and trying to find who Bush got his inspiration from?!??!?

Posted by Mask at 12/17/2006 @ 8:22pm
Great initial article Mr. Nichols! Incisive criticism within an interesting historical narrative and its irrefutable primary sources.

You are a scholar and a gentlemanly true patriot, sir!

Posted by lewwelge at 12/17/2006 @ 8:22pm
Posted by MASK 12/17/2006 @ 8:22pm

No, we can't name another dictator who "served only 8 years and left power voluntarily due to a constitutional term limit". But I don't think that was the point.

Before Bush, could you name another president that: 1. has consolidated so much executive power? 2. has put us this much in debt? 3. preemptively invaded another country? 4. advocates torture as a viable means of information gathering? 5. has caused most of the world to think so poorly of Americans? 6. scribbled so many "signing statements" on the back of bills stating the law did not apply to him? 7. decided not to follow the Geneva Convention?.......etc.

Just because we fear that the executive branch is becoming to powerful does not mean we think that Bush will decide next year that he is now the dictator. These things take time. Certain checkpoints have to be dismantled. Safeguards must be gotten around.

I don't understand how you can not see how far we have slid in that direction over the last 6 years. Despite all warnings from history, we are so damned willing to abandon our most important ideals the moment the going gets tough.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 8:54pm
i can't remember the last time mr. bush actually made a good decision.

Posted by darladoon at 12/17/2006 @ 8:55pm
i can't remember the last time mr. bush actually made a good decision.

Posted by darladoon at 12/17/2006 @ 8:55pm
RIO,

Why are you so willing to condemn Americans as "the enemy"?

If our government can't figure out how to get unions and management together in a compromise, how the F*CK are they supposed to get the Iraqis from killing eachother?

I agree with previous posts; it takes two to have a strike. What about the management? So no matter what they decide is fair for the workers, it's just tough shit? That does not seem very American.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 9:08pm
"If our government can't figure out how to get unions and management together in a compromise, "

Not the govt job...

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 9:13pm
I agree, not the governments job. Not their job to break strikes either.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 9:22pm
Someone (some reporter, some newspaper editor, etc...) should repeatedly call to the nation's and the president's attention that the oath of office for the president emphasizes, ABOVE ALL ELSE, the defense of the constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I think this is striking. Though the many responsibilities of the president are clearly covered by the term 'execute the office of President", the overwhelming emphasis in this official oath is on defense, protection, and preservation of the CONSTITUTION. It seems clear that the founders were worried about executive overeach and sought to restrict the presidency by submitting him to the constitution, a document concerned primarily with separation (and restriction) of powers. In fact, this oath clearly implies that, were the president confronted with conflicting courses of action that would either protect the nation or the constitution, he is obliged by this oath to protect the constitution first and the nation second.

Posted by Sousa at 12/17/2006 @ 9:42pm
Just so I understand, are the conservatives arguing in FAVOR of the guvt taking over a business or stepping in and telling the business how to run?

----

Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2006 @ 8:20pm

How do you get from A to B on that? You lost me.

baah. baah

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 9:45pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2006 @ 9:44pm

whoa! Careful with that axe, Eugene!

You're wandering.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 9:48pm
Posted by SOUSA 12/17/2006 @ 9:42pm

But chimpy had his fingers crossed. He's clever like that.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 9:50pm
As for the constitution: "it is just a God-damned piece of paper"- George W. Bush.

Posted by CRABWALK 12/17/2006 @ 3:12pm

-----------------------------

"That is intresting! What is this, hypocricy? Sounds more like the bleating cry of liberalism that the constitution is a "living document" very malleable and pliable to reinforce the various extremist group desires to reshape society! I guess it is only view in that vein if the one holding the view is a secular progressive!"

Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2006 @ 8:20pm

Matbe we ought to work on actually acknowledging the constition. Then we can argue about it's interpretation.

"I guess it is only view in that vein if the one holding the view is a secular progressive!"

Are you saying the conservative point of view is to disregard the constitution, as "just a God-damned piece of paper"? Not only do I think you are alone in that view, but it flys in the face of the meaning of the word.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2006 @ 9:56pm
I agree, not the governments job. Not their job to break strikes either.

Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/17/2006 @ 9:22pm

They have made some exceptions...the Railroads and the airlines.

A sitting President can step in and stop strikes that affect and disrupt public services and the overall economy.

No union can effectively hold the citizens of this country hostage to its demands. Remember the 80s? The airtraffic controllers pulled that stunt and Reagan used his executive authority to fire them all. (I believe that's how it should be..unions don't need that kind of power.)

Posted by ACook at 12/17/2006 @ 10:01pm
"Not their job to break strikes either."

Unless it threatens our military or its ability to function effectively,...and union workers wage demands verses our fighting men and womens safety ain't even a close call.......

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 10:01pm
RIO,

I can't speak for "the leftwing". If you are asking me if people on the other extreme of political ideologies do stupid things too, then HELL YES!

We need to get over that argument already. Claiming its OK to do stupid things because other people do them too does not solve problems. Just a lot of name calling as you see on these blogs.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 10:03pm
That was one of the things I liked about Reagan...and the country backed himon the Patco...

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 10:06pm
I don't disagree about the need to step in sometimes. It's checks and balances.

There are two choices. The government can do something about it or not. There is a lot of room to debate about this.

However, if they do choose to do something, I would rather them help broker a deal than go in forcefully.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 10:08pm
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/17/2006 @ 10:08pm

I agree, there is a "MIDDLEWAY"...;)

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 10:17pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2006 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person

so what about a little thing called the supreme court, whose decision came during an even bigger war, oops, police action. they were pretty unequivocal about their opinion. the pres would ignore the court at his own peril.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 10:23pm
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/17/2006 @ 8:54pm

Words MEAN things, MIDDLE....and the word "dictator" thrown around with such abandon by people OBSESSED (sorry Felicity) with a politician who will be GONE in 25 months....doesn't fit.

And I have this sneaking suspicion that this "dread" of a "powerful Executive" by the Left....will magically disappear if a less-than-Lieberman Democrat is elected President in 2 years.

Maybe the Right will take up the word and fling it around....but if a Dem, except for the Fringers like ZERO and ALANSMITHEE...

I don't expect to see many here to be calling "President Obama" a "dictator"...with absolutely NO changes in the powers he has versus those of Bush's.

Posted by Mask at 12/17/2006 @ 10:28pm
Middleway, being that Goodyear is a private contractor with the gov't, I seriously doubt the WH will step in and stop that strike.

The Pentagon more than likely has a backup plan. Other tire manufacturers will step in and it will be Goodyear's loss because neither management or the union moved to avert a possible strike in the first place.

The brass at the Pentagon will probably award a new contract to a different player. They don't have time to deal with the internal bickerings of a vendor. Hell, I'd bet money on that!!!...the other guys were waiting for Goodyear to slip up anyway...

Posted by ACook at 12/17/2006 @ 10:28pm
MASK, I agree. There's people on the left (who are bitching now) that would be totally fine about a Democrat in the same position.

My position, however, would remain the same.

This is actually a good argument against the trend for more executive powers. Whatever we give the current president will surely be used and expanded on by future presidents (even of the opposite party). We are much too short-sighted.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 10:43pm
ACOOK,

Yes, I agree. Then both sides will lose for not working it out themselves.

Posted by MiddleWay at 12/17/2006 @ 10:44pm
ACOOK<

"They don't have time to deal with the internal bickerings of a vendor. "

You are correct...this is exactly what they do...they move on...

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 10:52pm
This is just totally off thread and will last only 5 seconds...

I just bought 2 front row tickets for Eric Clapton....anyone ever see him live?

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 10:53pm
yes I have, just after he left the Yardbirds, his first gig with John Mayall's bluesbreakers. at the Marquee Club in London, when I was a nipper. the graffiti in London was Clapton is god. with Cream at the Fillmore East. and then with the Allman bros. at the same venue. It's all a big blur.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:08pm
Posted by SOUSA 12/17/2006 @ 9:42pm

Yea. He was good. Then Stevie Ray came out on stage and the level went up 400%. He blew Clapton right off the stage. One of the greatest crimes against humanity, the death of SRV. A true god amongst men.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:10pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/17/2006 @ 11:08pm

fossil.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:10pm
The brass at the Pentagon will probably award a new contract to a different player. They don't have time to deal with the internal bickerings of a vendor. Hell, I'd bet money on that!!!...the other guys were waiting for Goodyear to slip up anyway...

Posted by ACOOK 12/17/2006 @ 10:28pm | ignore this person

this would be a fine solution. go around the obstacle instead of straight at it. I hope they think of it.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:10pm
Sorry, wrong word. Fossil implies no growth.

Large Sequoia.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:11pm
Lucky old sequoia.

Mayall should be making the Big Bucks too. Under valued. Same with JJ Cale. (and soo many others) Although Cale looks like what Mask probably looks like, I think he is a happy man. Left alone to do his thing.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:15pm
yes, a fossil from a time when Hippies walked the earth. you shall never see their kind again. their time will be evoked when the old men sit around the fire and speak of a glorious past, a sandalous past, a roachclipped past, a lightshowed past, a black light past, and yes a rockconcerted past. that's my story and I'm sticking with it. catch me if you can.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:15pm
Posted by CRABWALK 12/17/2006 @ 11:10pm

OOPs, of course I am responding to John, not the The Composer.

Aber Sie haben das gekannt

hehe, The google is fun.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:19pm
now every place I go is full of old fogeys, what happened, who moved my cheese?

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:19pm
Great,

I will look forward to him...I used to go to all the out door concerts...and the venue, where SRV was killed in a copter crash is one of the best...Wisconsin..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:20pm
We are the old foggies now...thats why we see so many of them...when I was young I couldn't see any old foggies...just young women with bouncing....ah, life..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:22pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/17/2006 @ 11:15pm

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Cardboard box?

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Aye.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

ALL: They won't!

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:23pm
Mr. Ray was very very good, and for a time there was room for both. but we all, and they know who's the king of them all Y'all. Seattle's own....

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:24pm
Mr. Ray was very very good, and for a time there was room for both. but we all, and they know who's the king of them all y'all. Seattle's own....

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:26pm
John, if it is not anathema to you, check out the PBS fundraising vehicle Claptons umpteen guitars Crossroads festival. If you have not seen it already.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:28pm
that's good. Crab. but be kind with an old man's reminiscences, they are like large multicolored soap bubbles, soon to pop and leave a big wet soapy spot on the carpet

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:29pm
I actually prefer SRV. I think he played cleaner and more refined. . Of course, he would never have been if Jimi hadn't laid the groundwork. i've seen lots of footage of Jimi, he was raw, powerful, stoned out of his gourd. I saw SRV 4 times, stoned and sober. He was nnot human. He was a music cyborg, He was just one with his guitar.

sigh.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:33pm
SRV was stoned or sober.

me? no comment.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:35pm
"ted by CRABWALK 12/17/2006 @ 11:28pm | ignore this person"

I have and it is cool.

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:35pm
Crab,

I have sent money to PBS...I used the services and have paid for it.....:)

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:36pm
A race to the bottom Rio. Your belief system in action.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:37pm
Good for you, John. (no sarcasm) they offer a good service, they ask for money straight out, and it pours in. funny how if you give people what they want they will pay. (out the nose for Clapton tix, i bet)

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:40pm
I loved seeing Joe Walsh with JT. that man is dumb as a stump, but one of the few true rockers left. what a life he has had.

Do you know who the warm up act is?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:42pm
the bosses have nothing to do with sending the jobs overseas? I thought it was the bosses that ran these things. the owners insisting on ever greater returns. it is they that send the jobs overseas, not the unions. the sending of jobs away will backfire on the corporations and the multinationals. they will destroy the middle class, on whom they rely to buy their products. at the time of the greatest gains in productivity on the part of the workers, and corespondent record profits for management and shareholders, wages have not shown this increase. this is not a good trend. it will eventually lead to what I have described.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:43pm
most amusing.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:45pm
Rio is correct, sadly, in a world market...even if we didn't have a tire industry here, we couldn't start one...certain types or levels of manufacturing are gone and the unions ewill not allow one to be opened without their "cut" regardless of viability....in our industry, the ring buffers wanted to join the carpenters union in NY...buffing rings as in polish them after they are completed...equivelent of polishing the chrome on the bumpers of cars as they leave the factory...in 1990, they wanted $ 18.00 an hour or they would all walk off the jobs right before the Christmas manufacturing season...and these guys were not unionozed yet...advisers(thugs)helped them...now entire rings are made in India for a few dollars( not including the materials here or there).. just labor..all in new factorys built by the ever industrious Germans..

Rio is correct.

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:45pm
My last word will be Bela Fleck, that's two words, I know.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:49pm
Just a simple illustration of the union "activist" method of ridding a wooden ship of rats, which is to fire away with a shotgun until they are all dead or drown from the holes in the ship!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2006 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person

very cinematic, definitely hard boiled.the opening scene of a film noir.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/17/2006 @ 11:51pm
"cut"

You mean a share of the profits for making the product. An actual earned wage, unlike a dividend.

and now whose products do the old polishers buy? how much tax do they pay? whose restaurant do they eat at? How much do the indians spend in NY restaurants?

$18.00/hr. not even 40k a year. How much does the owner bring in a year?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:52pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/17/2006 @ 11:49pm

futureman.

My boss refused to believe there was such a thing as "Flecktones"

night.

tomorrow we will work this all out and sing kumbaya...

Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2006 @ 11:54pm
Crab,

No I don't know, I paid $ 560 for 2 tix..my wife loves him and I am in row 1 front of the stage..in Omaha..Qwest Center...this place is fabulous for live concets....and I have been in a few different venues.

On a side note and Joe Walsh..I saw the Eagles last year..the act should be called.."Joe Walsh lets the Eagles play with him"...anyway, one of the orginal Eagles is from Nebraska, (one of my best customers went to school and still hunts with him)and still lives here, so it was cool....anyway, I saw the James Gang 7 days in a row at the Minnesota State fair in 1970...the drummer, Jim Fox , 15 years later , stayed at my house..he was also a jewelry sales man...we still keep in contact a couple times a year and have dinner at the trade shows..see him on TV once in a while..He called Joe from my house one time and I talked to him...I thought it was cool...

another lost thread, my college buddies owned a club in Gainsville Florida...they had the Eagles play there when they were first staring out($500 for the whole band plus free beer and whatever)...and I met them and , ah, partied away the night with them...kinda fuzzy, if you catch my cloud...the warm up back then? A funny guy named Robin Williams...and yup he was in person as his act was then...yikes.. good storys, tho..

Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2006 @ 11:56pm
Nichols didn't mention the most important opinion from the Steel Seizure case over time --- Jackson's concurrence. Do yourself a favor and read his entire concurrence (or as many opinions of his as you can, he was truly a splendid writer). Here's four paragraphs from his Youngstown concurrence. The Supreme Court has used this test as a baseline to decide separation of powers issues over and over and over since.

Jackson:

"The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system."

Moral of the story --- the President simply has to get Congressional approval and the Supreme Court is very unlikely to strike down what he does. Of course, this President doesn't like asking for permission to do things.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/17/2006 @ 11:59pm
"$18.00/hr. not even 40k a year. How much does the owner bring in a year?

" In 1990, I think, the owner changed his business to reoair for the products he larger companies rejected..he adapted...many of those shop s areno longer in business...the district in Ny is different, if Providence it is gone, in La it run by the Armenians, and Asians, but mostly they are gone..the Indians are paying taxes here as they set up companies to sell the same stores we used to and we now work for many of them, in fact most are some sort of American partnerships...adapt to the changing world or go out of business..it is a old as life itself...never easy, but keeps one awake...the Indians may not eat at NY restaurants but they are buying homes...

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 12:03am
$560. FOR 2!!!!! I paid $30 to see him and SRV! that is outrageous, John. For that kind of dough you there better be a blonde under every seat. Crazy!!

Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2006 @ 08:49am
But those indians that are buying homes and opening businesses are not getting paid the same as the polishers are they? What do the former polishers do now? Do you care?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2006 @ 08:52am
CRAB....forgot the "pay-off" line...

Yorkshireman 1: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves.

----"Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl" (1982)

Posted by Mask at 12/18/2006 @ 08:55am
Are we a nation of sociopaths?

The fact that evil men have seized control of our government by illegal means and have condoned torture and genocide is frightening enough, but when you consider the astonishing lack of outrage by the American people, you begin to grasp the power of terrorism. We are ruled by homegrown terrorists, and we are terrified.

Either that, or we have been conditioned to be a nation of sociopaths.

Posted by rabblerowzer at 12/18/2006 @ 10:10am
"Unions were necessary at one time but are no longer...to be paid on a fixed scale is not in the best interest of any worker or the company, rather being paid as part of the entire result is much more profitable..profits raise, then we share accross the board, proits fall,(bad year) we don't strike the company and make it worse..manage held TOTALLY accountable for management errors."

If only the real world worked that way. How many thousands has Ford laid off after failing to produce automobiles that consume much less gas and are capable of competing with the likes of Honda and Toyota? What is the average ratio of pay between CEO's and entry level employees in the US? What happens if management chooses to act arbitrarily in the interest of only ownership? Unions are just as necessary now as they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. There has to be a counter weight to the power of management and the stockholders.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:22am
"But those indians that are buying homes and opening businesses are not getting paid the same as the polishers are they? What do the former polishers do now? Do you care?"

Why should they get paid the same as polishers? They started new business and I would assume that when they started, they got paid less than the polishers, in many cases, they is nothing left to pay when you open a business and the owners are the last paid...thats called risk and sacrifice to make something grow...Do I care about the former polishers sure , but don' I know where they are now, anymore than they know or care where I am now...nor would I expect them to.. I would hope they were smart enough to find work when their ended and move on..

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:23am
"$560. FOR 2!!!!! I paid $30 to see him and SRV! that is outrageous, John. For that kind of dough you there better be a blonde under every seat. Crazy!!

Posted by CRABWALK 12/18/2006 @ 08:49am"

Times have changed..too many people chasing to many seats...I could have gotten 2 seats for $ 100 but he would have been 1 inch tall to the eye...it a once in a life time treat...and our anniversary, her birthday plus Chrismas are all 2 weeks apart....so....

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:25am
And I don't think she would appreciate the blondes under the seats..even if I offered to take hers ,too.

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:26am
MT,

"How many thousands has Ford laid off after failing to produce automobiles that consume much less gas and are capable of competing with the likes of Honda and Toyota? What is the average ratio of pay between CEO's and entry level employees in the US? "

They do as GM is now doing...they are paying guys full salary and bennys for NOT WORKING FOR 3 YEARS, as they come to union hall for 2 hours, read the paper and collect their full check...and the cost?...you pay it when you buy the next car from GM, who, are not doing well these days...bad deal for the management? you bet..they negoitiated and gave in to that nonsesne..good deal for the union worker? yup, in the short term only..long term it helps kill off his job...good deal for consumer who wants to buy to help his American compatriot? Nope, too costly a car...and he passes...

we can't afford many more union deals like those...watch..GM and all autos makers are going to go bankrupt and dump their overbloated health and retirement packages...just not enough money left to pay anymore ..

Pay ratio of excs to lug nut tightner? Doesn't matter, no relationship unless YOU make one ...just bottm line...if bottom line goes up, then so should pay...goes down so should pay? Try that on the union..exec does poorly, he's fired, union worker does poorly...he's not fired..

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:34am
It's entertaining to read all these "free" market nuts prating on and on about how the system works out all problems, solves everything. They remind me of some commissar espousing the perfection of a Marxist-Leninist approach. Doctrinaire ideologes, completey out of touch with reality.

It's interesting, too, that the obvious corollaries to the "free" market go unmentioned. For example: In order for one person to be rich, a lot of people must be poor.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:39am
In order for one person to be rich, a lot of people must be poor.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 10:39am

How did Bill Gates drive millions (maybe billions) into poverty, MTSP?

Posted by Mask at 12/18/2006 @ 10:43am
John, you failed to address my point: Why did the men and women that are getting paid the big bucks fail to plan for the future and develop automobiles that can compete with economical models? What has happened to these myopic nabobs that chose only to produce gas guzzling SUV's that are no long marketable?

The difference between CEO pay and the average entry level payee is not important? Do you understand that a healthy, functional democracy is not possible when there are huge differences in wealth? You must have a large middle class to sustain a true democracy.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:46am
Are you that obtuse, Mask? In order for one person to rich a lot of people must be poor. There's only so much money in circulation.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:48am
Where's that "common sense" the right is always referring too?

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:49am
"It's entertaining to read all these "free" market nuts prating on and on about how the system works out all problems, solves everything. "

no, it doesn't solve evrything, but its the closest thing to getting there...it is a mistake to believe it is a cure all.

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:53am
" In order for one person to be rich, a lot of people must be poor."

Where do you come up with this shit? Ah, public school...of course.....explains everything...

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 10:56am
It's funny: I worked for Microsoft as a customer service rep when Windows 95 came out. Microsoft--the richest company in the world--used only temps for the position. We worked at least five days a week, the full time forty hours; there were no benefits, rights. The richest company in the world using temps? I never understood that. But, of course, for people to make millions, there has to be thousands being exploited in some way.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:57am
Public school? Yeah, my father was a working man and could not afford a private school. If he could have afforded a private school maybe I would have grown up with a slanted, self serving view such as yours.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 10:59am
Posted by MTSPENCE05

Do you know the difference between high income and wealth?

I think you are confusing the 2....

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 11:02am
No, I am not. Wealth is the top 2 or so percent that own, control over 90% of the money in this country.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 11:05am
"But, of course, for people to make millions, there has to be thousands being exploited in some way.'

ah, you are bitter...what was your job worth? what should you have been paid? If it is a bad deal. quit and move on.. you are only exploited if you let yourself be , feel that way and do not move on...make a case for yourself...improve yourseld\f..do not wait for Gates or anybody else to improve your lot or position..you have it within you and living in a society with the amount of free information every where you are more than capable to improve your situation...worrying and kvetching about Gates is no productive and pointless...

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 11:05am
No, I am not. Wealth is the top 2 or so percent that own, control over 90% of the money in this country.

Wrong. That is false.

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 11:06am
"maybe I would have grown up with a slanted, self serving view such as yours.'

I can't help you...only you can..if you believe you can't and the rich guy has it all locked up, well, then you are also locked in the senario of your choosing...and MT, I also went to public schools..haven't you noticed my spelling and typing problems? and my father and mother were average American too, and I can't think of nothing more honorable and they gave me a healthy competeive spirit..asnd I have failed more times than I can count..and will fail again tomorrow and I have yet to quit...I am not finished yet....as long as I am breathing..by reading your posrts....you have already found your excuse for failure and have quit..I am sorry.

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 11:12am
"John, you failed to address my point: Why did the men and women that are getting paid the big bucks fail to plan for the future and develop automobiles that can compete with economical models?"

Poor management. Period..it is GM, Ford fault for building models no one bought...that is also part of the risk....management paid it by white collar layoffs and firings and the unions still got paid...and now they are being laid off too..unoins and mangement are too aversarial here instead of cooperative.

gotta go

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 11:15am
Executive get fired with huge golden parachutes. Workers get laid-off and half to settle for non-union service jobs with diminished pay and benefits.

Here's [preview.tinyurl.com] a piece written by Fortune's editor-at-large (hardly a job slot to be filled by a socialist).

Here's a taste: "Still, even 7.5 percent of GDP is the highest profit share since 1997 (and before that, 1966). The money had to come from somewhere, and BEA data show that over the past five years much of it has come from lower worker compensation and lower interest rates. These are both factors investors would do well to watch in the months ahead."

Posted by brunowe at 12/18/2006 @ 11:17am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 10:48am

MTSP's depth of economic understanding is liliputian.

Let me guess, you think there is, oh, 10 Trillion dollars in the whole world and if Gates gets 50 billion of it ...that means that there "isn't" 50 billion for poor people....right?

Posted by Mask at 12/18/2006 @ 11:23am
Like I said: doctinaire ideologue. Sure, I can and did move on to better things. But some people can't, and for those individuals a social Darwinian view such as yours just doesn't cut it. Not everybody can be rich or be the boss; that doesn't mean, however, they should have to live a life of insecurity, poverty. If a man/woman is capable and willing to show up at work on time every day, do a good job, then he/she should enjoy a decent income, some benefits--that's called a civil society. A gross maldistribution of wealth is inimical to a functioning democracy. (Can you at least acknowledge that point?) This "free" market ideology seeks simply to reduce civil society to nothing more than a jungle; it reduces humans to animals, clawing and fighting just to survive. (And while everyone's busy clawing and fighting just to make ends meet, they are so easy to divide, conquer.)

Sing praises all you want for the "free" market, but without counterweights to its power democracy cannot, will not survive.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 11:26am
"Poor management. Period..it is GM, Ford fault for building models no one bought...that is also part of the risk....management paid it by white collar layoffs and firings...."

Oh, the CEO and others that are responsible gave back the millions that have garnered?

Tell me, Mask, if everyone was rich who would do the labor? There is only so much money in circulation (the Fed is extremely sensitive to inflation). Money, gold, cows--whatever the instrument of exchange is: it's limited, and that's what gives it value.

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 11:31am
I wonder how many of those striking Goodyear employees could afford to spend $560 for two concert tickets...

Posted by drhammer at 12/18/2006 @ 12:24pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 11:31am

Was that MY quote?!?!??!

Try to enlighten you on basic economics (not that it will do much good, since your theories on it are purely emotional)...but...

instruments of exchange are NOT the same thing as "wealth".

Despite what you may think, Bill Gates did not "steal" 50 billion dollars from "the poor" that they would have normally gotten.

Atleast go back and re-read your Marx....it's better to have a WRONG economic theory-base, than NONE (or a college "activist" student's).

Posted by Mask at 12/18/2006 @ 1:03pm
"I wonder how many of those striking Goodyear employees could afford to spend $560 for two concert tickets..."

Posted by DRHAMMER 12/18/2006 @ 12:24am

Not my problem,and nomne of his/her business what I do wiotjh my money...or do you think it is? then you have a friend in Jakob..,and neither is my problem that they have health care or what ever they have that I don't ...it is my choice...my free choice..

That has got to be your worst post yet...no fore thought on your part.

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 1:58pm
DR,

My neighbors, where I grew up, worked in factorys and they had campers, boats skis, fishing trips and a life that we did not...did he own our family a fishing trip?..My neighbor was a union factory worker..

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 2:06pm
Kinda prickly today, aren't we, Maasch?

I was trying to illustrate a possible disparity between perspectives here. I would no more suggest that you release your white-knuckle grip on your hard-earned social Darwinist bootstrap booty than I would that today's factory workers enjoy the same quality of life and workplace respect as your childhood neighbors.

Posted by drhammer at 12/18/2006 @ 3:03pm
Eloquent and balanced prose MTSpence05! I'd hire you in a second if I was an owner/manager. As it is, we're competing for the attention of ALL, in and among all we "Persons of the Year," according to Time magazine's editorialists (ha,ha).

Say what we will on the Left, the Social Darwinists cum "free market" (hyper)capitalists are seemingly in constant motion (morally!) and are thus extremely difficult to pin down; especially when it comes to thoughtful reflection. Too busy!

Posted by lewwelge at 12/18/2006 @ 3:11pm
"That has got to be your worst post yet...no fore thought on your part."

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/18/2006 @ 1:58pm

Of course, I live for your approval, and will no doubt become quite despondent.

Posted by drhammer at 12/18/2006 @ 3:13pm
"Try to enlighten you on basic economics (not that it will do much good, since your theories on it are purely emotional)...but... "

Actually, they're rational. You see, Mask, I grew up in this country, went to public schools where the company line was preached--just like most everyone else. Fortunately I possessed the need to ask "why". Those like you, down on your knees, giving praise to the "free" market, are worshipping a false god, a false science. You've allured to me being taught false concepts at school; that's what the economics currently in vogue do. This is real life, not some theoritical text book bs, where everything works like it's supposed to. Economic policies that ignore--disregard--the welfare of millions are flawed, to say the least. Without a more balanced, responsible approach, the US will eventually resemble our Third World neighbors to the south--no middle class and an authoritarian government that is a democracy in name only.

Now, can you please admit that huge disparities in wealth are inimical to a healthy, fully functional democracy?

Posted by mtspence05 at 12/18/2006 @ 5:31pm
"Of course, I live for your approval, and will no doubt become quite despondent."

Somehow I don't think so... :)

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 6:59pm
"This is real life, not some theoritical text book bs, where everything works like it's supposed to."

This is what we have been screaming in liberal faces since Goldwater...to no avail..and you still want to confiscate other peoples things..

Posted by john maasch at 12/18/2006 @ 7:01pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/18/2006 @ 11:05am

You do make an interesting point that "being exploited" is in the eyes of the beholder. Some can make relatively little money but be content with their jobs - and thus not "feel" exploited. However, the opposite point is valid - that just because people don't "feel" exploited doesn't mean they aren't being exploited. I agree that capitalism is better than it's alternatives, much as democracy is better than its alternatives -- doesn't make either perfect, for sure, definitely not even great, probably not even good -- but the best of what's around.

But the point is perfectly valid that for there to be rich people there has to be poor.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/19/2006 @ 01:13am
Mask wrote to Mtspence05: "Let me guess, you think there is, oh, 10 Trillion dollars in the whole world and if Gates gets 50 billion of it ...that means that there "isn't" 50 billion for poor people....right?"

Mask - you didn't address how Gates acquired his money, is the point Mtspence05 is making. Sure, exploited workers in America are better off than exploited workers throughout most of the world, and even better off than poeple we would not call "exploited" throughout the world. But your point does not negate Mtspence05's point that for people to get rich in this world - including America - people's labor has to be exploited. I know you probably believe in the 'rising tide lifts all ships' idea but not all of us do.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/19/2006 @ 01:17am
Now, can you please admit that huge disparities in wealth are inimical to a healthy, fully functional democracy?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 5:31pm

I agree that huge disparities in wealth make the large swaths at the bottom of the fiscal totem pole more and more prone to the whims of those at the top. Thankfully we don't have a "jungle" market, as you say, and rather it is regulated heavily - that is part of what keeps our society intact.

p.s. - don't look for Mask to admit you're correct on anything. That's inimical to his purpose of being here.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/19/2006 @ 01:23am
Yeah, contrarians get off on conflictedness, not harmony.

Healthy balance remains the best metaphor for positive behaviors which we measure in terms of frequency, intensity and duration.

Operant conditioning explains most of life's foibles. Like Lennon said, "it (life) is what happens to us when we're busy making other plans."

Essentially, though, it's like the line in the Three Dog Night tune, I seem to recall: "it's either 'yes,' or 'no,'" and most people don't realize that "not choosing is also a choice." An example of the institutional malaise which results from the latter ignorance is the prevalent tendency to reject any proposal which interferes with the continuing incremental accretions of material progress/profits. This entropic phenomenon eventually, historically, leads to a critical mass of dissatisfaction and a paroxysm/correction.

Posted by lewwelge at 12/19/2006 @ 07:10am
Meanwhile, you want lies with that?

Posted by lewwelge at 12/19/2006 @ 07:12am
Of course, most of us do. Little falsehoods are more easily assimilated than the harsh glare of Truth. In this I guess I'm an Idealist, in the original Platonic sense.

Who's with us?

Posted by lewwelge at 12/19/2006 @ 07:14am
It's interesting, too, that the obvious corollaries to the "free" market go unmentioned. For example: In order for one person to be rich, a lot of people must be poor.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 10:39am

The assumption being made is that the "rich" got rich through the relatively low wages paid to the workers. That may be true of large corporations with highly paid CEOs but even in those cases if you did the calcs you would find that if all of a CEO's income was distributed amongst the lower paid employees it would have little effect in moving them up the wages scale.

The reality is that with all listed public companies, everyone whatever their salary scale, can have a share in the ownership and profits of those companies through the stock market, whether by direct investment or through such instruments as superannuation funds. Haven't checked your stats but wouldn't be surprised if, like Australia, you have a very high percentage of the population who are part owners in a range of companies in this way.

In Australia, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same in the US, the big employer of labour, by far, is small business. I know a bit about this and many small business operators (less than 100 employees) make their "real" money out of things like capital appreciation on residential and commercial properties and stock market investments and also in trading the markets. eg. The last five years or so has seen the price of nickel jump from about 7,000USD to 35,000USD/ tonne. Those of us who were looking at China and India, and well managed exploration companies with good prospective ground, were able to make 10 and 20 bangers in very short periods of time so that it was not hard to turn say $50,000 into $500,000 and more, not by exploiting our employees but rather through the burgeoning world markets. Most of us who are there, are not in business primarily for the money but because we like what we do and are good at it.

The money that makes us "rich", in most cases, has little to do with our employee's contribution to it (except that we may, from time to time, have access to significant funds within the business for short term investment or trading purposes). It is my observation that those business owners who have got relatively wealthy have invariably done it through capital appreciation on their investments outside their core business.

BTW there are many "factory" workers in this country who own 1 or more rental properties, apart from their home, and have become asset rich by slow accumulation and capital gains. Perhaps rather than redistributing the wealth of others through taxes, better outcomes may be had by encouraging the poor to become "petty" capitalists. I notice someone just won a Nobel Prize for making very small business loans to peasants in Bangladesh. Sort of cottage industry capitalism.

Most Western democracies, including yours are not the fiefdom of capitalists and free marketeers but rather and in varying degrees, are highly regulated and are governed by generous distributors of middle class welfare

Posted by lrjones4 at 12/19/2006 @ 08:56am
Posted by URMYGYRO 12/19/2006 @ 01:17am

URMY, Bill Gates did not get his billions from "exploiting the workers" or whatever college level Marxism MTSPENCE wants to shell out.

He created a product, marketed it, BUNDLED it, everything else legal he could and SOLD IT and people bought it. If he had paid his customer service people as much as he paid his middle management people or whatever....he'd STILL have made BILLIONS off of Windows and Microsoft, because he was President and CEO of it.

He sold a PRODUCT....a product with VERY low labor costs (and not due to "exploited proletariat", but due to the fact it was basically a "recording" laser-etched by machines).

MTSPENCE still thinks like it's 1900 and Gates is Rockefeller, Carnegie or Mellon, owning steel mills paying pennies a day...or machine gunning coal mine strikers.

Oprah Winfrey has a net worth of $1.5 BILLION dollars....

what workers did she exploit, comrades?

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2006 @ 09:19am
Everyone at the top has exploited workers at the bottom. The level of exploitation may be less today than 100 years ago - but it's exploitation nonetheless.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/19/2006 @ 3:51pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 12/19/2006 @ 3:51pm

Explain to me...IN DETAIL...how an African-American woman, who was born in Mississippi, and grew up in a Milwaukee inner city ghetto as a child of a single mother household....

"exploited workers at the bottom" to become a billionaire by having a television show?

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2006 @ 4:16pm
Are you that obtuse, Mask? In order for one person to rich a lot of people must be poor. There's only so much money in circulation.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/18/2006 @ 10:48am | ignore this person

this is an absurd assertion. the amount of money in circulation has nothing to do with it. Bill Gates made his fortune by creating an industry. his wealth has never been related in any way to another man's poverty. it is this kind of nonsense the Tories pounce on, correctly so.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2006 @ 2:41pm
Everyone at the top has exploited workers at the bottom. The level of exploitation may be less today than 100 years ago - but it's exploitation nonetheless.

Posted by URMYGYRO 12/19/2006 @ 3:51pm | ignore this person

this is far too broad, so as to be meaningless. whattaloadofcrap.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2006 @ 2:42pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

Wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is and encourage your offspring to become janitors or maids or fast food workers, etc. If those, and many, many other jobs aren't jobs where the workers are exploited then you should feel comfortable encouraging those you love to take them.

But I'm sure you and no one else here would ever enourage your children to aim that low.

Whataloadofcrap is exactly right --- it applies to your self-righteous nonsense.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/21/2006 @ 3:20pm
JRolf/Mask - it's not about money in circulation. You want to frame it that way - and you're wrong.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/21/2006 @ 3:22pm
Mask - Oprah participates in capitalism, so she certainly is exploiting workers. Or, if you're more comfortable with this - willfully blind to those who are exploited so that she can rake in the dough. She puts out television shows and magazines, etc. All of these productions require there to be workers who don't make much money doing their jobs so that she can do her thing. Think of every job that is necessary for her to get her tv show and magazine out to her viewers, and think of every job that is necessary for her to advertise her show and magazine. There are certainly many jobs in those chains that are exploited. It's not about direct exploitation by one person - and that's the thing that makes it so easy for those at the top to exploit - they don't come into contact with those at the bottom on whose shoulders they stand, so it's easy for them to ignore.

Don't twist the topic into me hating Oprah or Bill Gates. They seem like good people and they certainly do comnedable charity work. But this is about how capitalism works and it's root - those who make money at the top are standing on the shoulders of those at the bottom - many of whom are exploited.

Again, if you think the jobs at the bottom are not jobs where the people who work them are exploited - then encourage your loved ones to work them. Or, better yet, work them yourself.

Seriously doubtful, I know.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/21/2006 @ 3:28pm