Which of these radical ideas might both Conservatives and Liberals rally behind together…?
Top 3 Ways to Settle Credit Card Debt FAST:
1. Debt Shield
2. CareOneCredit
3. DIY Debt Elimination
1. Profit-sharing/stock ownership plan for UAW Workers, as a pre-condition for bailout package…
Conservatives should like it, because ownership & profit sharing in the company will bring UAW back to RESPONSIBLE negotiations that don't jeopardize the long-term viability of companies and encourages more pay-as-you-go type spending tied to immediate financial condition of the company with creating long term debt/liabilities.
Liberals should like it because it puts workers first, and increases power of UAW in a responsible long-term viable way.
2. A Marshall plan for Russia that is contigient on respect to the sovereignty of existing nations as they are currently drawn, and would be used to encourage non-oil based economy (i.e. manuafacturing & industry).
The idea here is to stabilize a country in economic turmoil due to the sinking price of oil that owns the greatest number of nuclear missiles outside the United States. We cannot afford to let them become destabilized. At the same time we can use economic aid to pressure reform(free speech, free press, freedom of dissent), respect of border integrity, and most importantly move them to an economy that can benefit their people long term—beyond oil usage. Oil is a corrupting influence that encourages power grabs that hurt their people.
Conservatives should like protections against nuclear proliferation, border stability, and reform of tyrannical government.
Liberals should like the addressing of the underlying causes of Russia's tyrannical gov't as well as decreasing oil focus by Russia.
Just some radical out-of-the box thinking for the Last working Friday of the year…..
"Which of these radical ideas might both Conservatives and Liberals rally behind together…?
1. Profit-sharing/stock ownership plan for UAW Workers, as a pre-condition for bailout package…
Conservatives should like it, because ownership & profit sharing in the company will bring UAW back to RESPONSIBLE negotiations"
No, Conservatives shouldnt like it because it involves 1) A government give away of tax dollars 2) Government strong arming a private company into sharing its profits with its employees. IF the company wants to do that, they should do it on their own without anyone forcing them to. And if they dont want to do that, then thats their business.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
We certainly need out of the box thinking and you have proved that you are certainly part of the solution.
That said, I would need to know more about the long term effects of both situations.
The Auto industry is hurting because nobody is buying their cars and a bailout only prolongs the inevitable.
Russia on the other hand, needs to address its needs and work within themselves.
References :
January 14th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
"Which of these radical ideas might both Conservatives and Liberals rally behind together…?
1. Profit-sharing/stock ownership plan for UAW Workers, as a pre-condition for bailout package…
Conservatives should like it, because ownership & profit sharing in the company will bring UAW back to RESPONSIBLE negotiations"
No, Conservatives shouldnt like it because it involves 1) A government give away of tax dollars 2) Government strong arming a private company into sharing its profits with its employees. IF the company wants to do that, they should do it on their own without anyone forcing them to. And if they dont want to do that, then thats their business.
References :
January 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Both of your proposals are interesting, and have merit. The problem is that in your first proposal, the UAW doesn't really get anything for the change in compensation. I think they will dig their heels in and let the auto industry implode before they agree to a change.
The second proposal assumes that the US and Western Europe can impose a plan in Russia. I don't think the Russian government is as concerned about their stability as we are. It's a problem for us, not them.
References :