jackson33

Actually, I have noticed your interpretation of law and then applying to an argument. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, gays hold all rights of Heterosexual Marriages today and no State can deny the lifestyle. I just went through 'Incest' laws and have mentioned 'Adoption Law' a couple times. The inconsistence MENTIONED supports your arguments, but could equally support incest or polygamy or any number of lifestyle, including a couple you would never support in this country. Traditional (Fundamentalist) Islamic practices, for instance. Any forcing of lifestyle on others, for recognition or in law, where the dominate society rejects is at best a slippery slope and at worst the end of that society if not correctly persued..IMO.

Incest is legal in 18 States, legal with restrictions in 7 others and illegal in the rest. Where illegal, its hard to believe any Court House Clerk, questions relationships in giving out licenses. The point is, in that marriage they are then entitled to all the benefits of those 18 States, DC and the Federal Government and I would bet there is no application form in existence, for a benefit that ask relationships other than marriage. That is even where illegal, implied rights observed....and all rights of the Federal would be mandatory. States 'currently' have the the final say in who is eligible or can be married or in fact who cannot, to the limits of Federal Law. Since US Law, does NOT forbid same sex marriage, implies 1/m-1/f for recognition of Federal Legal rights/benefits of any couple fitting the one/one formula, they afford all rights given by the States, but to that limit. IMO; Both sides on this issue are taking an emotional path in expressing their opinions, disregarding the laws our social structure or laws are patterned for. This being any State can most certainly establish legality for any Union and to its certification. This then continues to follow with other States, who have the same right to deny specific rights of other States or to their own population. Technically with out popular vote or opinion, or at the discretion of their legal or legislature system. Prop 8, in California is NOT binding to legislative action or the Judicial and either could over ride that vote. In California, however, the people have a right to 'RECALL', State Officials including State Judges and have used that process to recall several Judges that actually did over road the 2000 referendum opposing this issue. I do find it interesting such passion exist, to Gay Rights, when the only rights involved with any meaning are the social acceptance of the lifestyle itself, which is NOT denied. Very true and any farmer or breeder of livestock would testify to just what all could happen. On races, there are differences in races to resistance or lack of to many medical problems and of course there is always AID's or the immune system 'said' caused by lifestyle. The trouble is predictability to future generations is fast becoming a reality; Are we going to terminate pregnancy in the future, because one of the thousands of traits do not fit some criteria for acceptance...

Well agent, it was an issue in the 18th century. In those days it was 'sodomy' and remained the primary issue well into the 20th century. Washington, Jefferson and many of the founders address the issue and nothing being mentioned even tolerated by those folks. However the Constitution, not only delegated this topic under moral issues, but many issues as which are also not mentioned in the Constitution, to the States. They also very plainly spelled out a process for change, as they knew (all of them) society would change. Even then 'women rights' 'slavery' 'suffrage- who allowed' were argued very much as was until the laws changes by that outline for change. 'apologeticspress.org' article 3769, for a reading on founders thoughts, this issue. Jefferson in 1781, actually proposed a bill to his Virginia Congress to dismember (body part) for any person found guilty of sodomy, all 13 colonies had laws forbidding and punishment in NY, VT, Conn and SC was death. I would argue today, we as a society are as much to blame for the rise in this activity as anything, by our use of prisons for punishments, which IMO creates more bisexual to homosexuals than any genetic cause. Did you know at year end 2006, there were over 7 million people (men/women/kids) in some form of confinement or on parole.

Although I don't necessarily agree, much of the debt being taken on, is because 'credit markets' have dried up. That is in loaning or buying preferred stocks are loans, which can be cashed in, at some point in the future. IMO; There is still plenty of cash out there, but waiting for some sign of a bottom or at least stability. At best then, government is establishing a false bottom. 2009 Tax revenues by ALL governments are going to be at several year lows, while every one of those governments has budgeted 2009, based on 2008 revenues. Forgiving the Federal Tax Payers or the Corporate structure taxes due for 2008 would do nothing, unless it was proposed for the entire 2009 year, not 2008. Then you would have mass planning to avoid some gains in 2009, creating the same problems that may be part of the current problem, from the investment arena. Bad idea...

Actually there are a good many sources. Google *1979 VW MPG* taking you pick. I chose 'mpgomatic.com'. Seems five 79 VW models went over 40, three of them over 50 MPG, as did some 13 other non-VW models including a couple Ford and Dodge Models. Did note a 1960 Polo reaching 60MPG on another site. None in the 20 MPG for VW, but the National Average in 1960 was 12.4 MPG, reaching 16.9MPG in 1991, where it held until 2004. Think the point made is obvious. 2 VW were sold in the US, at a Auto Show in 1949 and by 1955 a million were sold in the US. There claim to fame however was aligned more to clean burning, rather than MPG with gas prices around 20/30 cents per gallon. They had a 16 valve, four cylinder engine allowing almost total pure emission standard, as I understand it. GM, Saturn also has an impressive history, not often mentioned when innovation is lost in an excuse for the Big Three Sales decline. In my opinion, couldn't explain if I knew; The connection between emissions, types of fuel available and other requirements mandated to auto makers, has made it complicated to keep MPG increasing. Even todays higher mileage cars are hybrids, burning no fuel part of the time, or they would still be down around 30MPG. I do think lead based fuels were more efficient for MPG, but very high held very emissions ratings. Well, they do make cars that can travel up to 100 miles a day or more and burn absolutely no fuel, so to speak then its a question of convenience and afford ability to the consumer, who seems to appreciate that weekly or bi-weekly visit to the Gasoline Station. (off topic note) Hope your don't get carried away on Prop 8 topic. By nature it can push the 'political correctness' envelope, but maybe its about time it get moved back to a point conversation can be held...

First a child (infant to 5-8) has no understanding what gay means or above that today to understand its right/wrong. I personally don't feel its wrong, having any sexual fantasy or preference. Second; Nurturing children, has been found beneficial to a common end, whether by a single parent, or any combination of a couple or in fact with in polygamy communities. Third; Courts and Juries are to rule on the law and the laws are established in some manner by the society. As Bruce mentioned, precedence holds some weight and the awarding of custody by the STATE, four years earlier in the Florida case set that precedence to State Policy and was not objected to (that I know of). Warped views in general are subjective. In the US, we have many traditional couples with probably truly warped views of their country, their government, their laws or what sex should or should not be. Think Fox News reported over 20 cases of 'Mercy Killings' in the US by a parent of a daughter or woman over some religious concept. I personally don't think any gay person would encourage his/her life style, but am sure none would kill their child if the child didn't accept theirs...opinion. Finally; I'll be the first to argue acceptance of 'same sex marriage' but under the law. Since the laws already accept adoption policies of all the States, I'll argue the acceptance of law with no less passion with regards to those adoptions, whether I agree or not....

iNow; A noteworthy fact is that the SC, has heard many social issues many times previous to making change. Said another way, when the legal actions come from another direction. If I were you or an attorney for the ACLU, I would start approaching this issue, from current State Law for adoption of children. The ACLU, recently won a case in Florida, via an activist Judge, saying a Gay Man with a partner should be allowed to adopt children. This case will be appealed and no doubt lost at the State Supreme Court, since State Law specifically makes that an illegal decision. However if taken to the US SC, if they HEAR the case (feel likely) there is a great deal of National Precedence for Gay's to adopt and from all 50 States, including Florida. This particular Florida case these two men were awarded custody, in the first place. Although I would argue different or oppose, on my belief in choice over genetics, maybe questioning how genes enter our systems when being imprisoned or the changes made during and after confinement or some other IMO obvious examples, there is a definite inconsistence in our laws. If in all 50 States gay/lesbian have in some manner legal rights to legally adopt, much less foster care children and in many cases with partners...How can they be denied additional rights of hetero sexual people, married or not and then the actual civil act of marriage. Its very likely the US SC, would have to through out all adoption law (not likely) or establish other rights were indeed being infringed. If the question is consistency in law, or that rights are already beyond the accepted, into the 'said' purpose of marriage, on what grounds could they end at a particular point. Under the US Constitution and current laws, individual rights dependent on State Rights, must be consistent with other State Law or the loss of some right by the courts, such as 'conviction of a crime'.

Since the 1947 'Presidential Succession Act', the Secr. of State was first in line if both the P & VP were incapacitated in some manner. From this act and today, the succession goes to the Speaker of the House (would be Polosi), Senate Majority leader or President pro tempore (would be Reid) then the Secretary of the State (would be Rice) and Treasury and on down the line of Cabinet members. Of course, this would only be used if several leaders were injured or killed near the same time (terrorist attack). During every State of the Union address, at least one person in the upper chain is not present, for this very reason and I feel sure vacations and Congressional Sessions are built around some not being in Washington at any one time.

Thats the point....

In short; The US SC, REVIEWED & GAVE AN OPINION, on the Minnesota Stature, clarifying status for recognition for access to benefits. I agree, that opinion can be used for precedence, but only when parties try to gain benefits under the Marriage Contract. If it had established law (it did not), Prop 8 would in fact have been unconstitutional, as would have been the California Supreme Courts rulings. Prop 8, allowing a popular vote on an illegal action, so to speak. Factually, any State can make anything not covered in some manner with US Law or the Constitution, legal or illegal with in there State. At this point, there is no such US law covering marriages (unions) covered under these laws, to prevent a State from granting anything they wish to whomever they please. I feel sure I could find some disgruntled clerk in some courthouse, giving me a license to marry my pet Monkey and some ship Captain to perform some kind of ceremony and I could live out my life or the monkeys in blissful harmony, so long as no other local laws were broken. Trying not to expand the issue, precedent had been established on many issues, long since decided as unconstitutional. US SC decisions (Abortion) or where law is established (not precedent) or and my argument here, when Congress establishes law or an amendment (suffrage/rights and many issues)to the Constitution, can the issue be rested. US District Courts cannot get involved (no authority), Appeal Courts can hear only those cases involving US interest from the States SC, same for US SC, the Congress is the only viable place where the issue can be resolved. Added most amendments, include the right of Congress to clarify or alter wording without the complex procedure for new ones....IMO.

There are near 2 million Federal Employees, that do the day to day business of Government, in Washington DC and though out the US and every Foreign Embassy in the World. Top management and heads of most are appointments by an administration on taking office only. Most just resign with the end of one administration, others are asked to stay and others have just gone on through many administrations, such as in field offices, under some department. For example today, Obama may know exactly how many replacements will be needed on January 22, 2009 and as he picks his Cabinet, Staff and heads of these Departments, working together or delicates, the lower levels of managements are picked, several thousand in total. In most cases these jobs are a reward for the people who helped the most, getting a President elected. There are several UNION'S, for Federal employee's and the strongest of any Unions in the US. The strongest of these under AFL/CIO is the American Federation of Government Employees, with over 600,000 members. In 2007, the average Federal Employee earned $77,143 in wages and with perk (cost to tax payers) $116,450 per year, more than the National Averages of $48k and 56K per year. They are eligible for retirement in some cases after 20 years (like military, but civilian) with partial benefits and after 30 can receive full benefits, including up to 95% of wages earned on the job and 100% paid health care for life and spouses receive a percentage beyond this. As Teachers Unions, Auto Workers and in general under most Union Contracts, there is a procedure for ending a job, replacing a members job or in fact firing that person.

Having been unable to show reason, how a State can achieve law through the populace, where the Federal has no such means (referendum) and the process for governing States and the Federal are not only different, but have completely different purposes, your opening comment in post 56 is understandable. Both side on this thread are addressing State laws, which by no other way, are interpretations of the Federal Constitution and/or law. Congress, however remains the last step to what law can become. Even if the SC rules pro/con any issue, Congress can simply re-establish some intent and through the process change the original intent. Federal laws today, say nothing about gay marriages, only that for recognition any union must be by one man and one woman. Pro-issue advocates, and some Judges have interpreted the 14th A, to include 'sexual orientation' which is found nowhere in Federal Law, including the Code (law) for recognition. The SC, then IMO, could not make a judgment either direction on prop 8, but for lack of jurisdiction. That is that Court has no authority over what any State constitutes as a Union/Marriage, with out the mention of specific rights or what rights are being denied, which would be under recognition. A State can give rights, financial to legal, so long as other Federal Laws are not compromised, such as WAS sodomy, long ago ruled on. If Prop 8, had mentioned, even implied, or the California SC or their legislatures had included (none did) the rights of individuals would include Federal Rights or that other States would be forced into recognizing their law, the SC would have heard this case in 2000 or before. States, have the authority to maintain rights in there State, short of Federal Law, which no other State is obliged to grant or honor. Your trying to imply Federal Law, which any law is subject to all States (In Constitution) as being equal to State Law being accepted/honored by all States in the same manner. There is nothing uniform today between any State, including a good many rights given in one State or another. The uniformity mentioned in the Constitutions pertains to States trying to circumvent Federal Law or even another State and of course any Federal Law.

"To a degree": But all representatives with in any State, represent only the people of that State. I mentioned this in comparing the needs of people in NYC and NY...The founders literally hated the idea of "mob rule" (Democracy) but wanted the input of the populace. The House, when designed (though democracy never mentioned) was for districts of 30k people. Those 30K then chose the one person to represent them and sent to (today) Washington DC., or if you prefer the 'Representative Democracy', but beyond this and the controlling factor for our Federal 'Common Interest' Republic takes hold. To illustrate this if we had held to a maximum of 30K per district, we would have near ten thousand districts today...totally unrealistic. For the record, however some city, even a few counties do use pure Democracy or the 'Town Hall' system and most all States have some form of the 'Referendum System' (Individual vote) for major issues. Democracy is a term used, but degree of more relevant. Even the Greek word for democracy was to the degree of a quorum. I realize this is nitpicking, but I feel strongly misunderstood as you drop from the Federal to lower levels of government. Remember of the 2M or so populace in the late 1700's, the electorate, those allowed to vote was probably less than 200K or about 10% of the total.

The Republic is at the National Level, based on common interest. States and lower governments are democracies, even if to degree. Majorities do rule, and a good thing when interest in Wyoming or New Jersey, NYC or NY may be totally different. State rights were a determining cause for the ratification of the Constitution, in the first place. Common interest of the Federal is based on issue, which directly of indirectly effect all States, regardless each States opinions on that issue. This is why, House members create the Legislation, although where majority (Democracy) ends... iNow; Based on laws today and IMO, the US SC could only rule against 'Same Sex Marriage' or at best against those legislatures interpretations, especially in California, where their laws indicate exactly what US Codes already indicate and based on recognition to certain rights. I agree, under any other name any Union, could no longer be found other than 'Legal Consenting Adults'. Again, SF under California law has the authority to grant rights, which are not authorized or mandated acceptable to California, the question there being, where those rights infringe on the rest of the population. On the personal level, I feel to much US law is already based on Religious concept, but not anywhere near the levels of the 19th Century. However to me it falls both direction and religious sects should be allowed the same privileges you suggest for gays, but limited to other laws and restricted from public funds or benefits, until or if it is acceptable to the majority.

The difference between a Democracy and our system of a Representative Republic, has established a system where local issues can be determined by local popular vote, but to the limits of the Nation Interest or Constitution. Corporate Law, for instance is purely a State issue, for structuring but has limitations by regulations of Congress and/or the Executive branch. Many laws, including seat belts, insurance, taxes, road structures, education k-12 and others are State driven...but in funding controlled by the Federal to a degree. doG; Yes, even amendments can be overturned, the Constitution changed or the total electorate ignored. Prohibition the most referred to, but suffrage, election of Senators by popular vote or the total of House Members, all directly addressed in the Constitution are not what was intended. Of course slavery will not come back, but under our system, this could happen...where it starts from, not material.

California laws related to 'Same Sex Marriage' or more specifically the recognition of, are identical to the US. Family Law Codes, state that "A man and women". Then add to this Prop.22 in 2000 and entered into this same code (section 308.5), voted on by the people; "ONLY marriage between one man and one woman is VALID or recognized in the State of California. The Supreme Court of California, also operates in the same manner as the US SC, where interpretations of their Constitution and laws are used to judge actions, in this case the Mayor of SF. They found those actions under to be consistent with the US Constitution under A14 and other law. The people then voted once again on the issue, affirming their original stance in 2000. Keep in mind here, that the California Legislature, has the authority and duty to clarify what they want, as lawful recognition, or to legislate law, to overthrow previous law, and has not. There is nothing they can do, to enforce laws which are already on the books, which is the duty of the Governor, Courts and when required their SC. In the meantime, Bush has requested the US Congress to amend the US Constitution, to settle the issue on what US would recognize. The Governor of California has also asked his Congress to address the issue, saying he would sign legislation in either direction, knowing in both cases it would be tested, probably to the US Supreme Court. Please note, this is my interpretation and obviously there is no possible way to determine what or how actions taken on any State level, can determine the final outcome. Since day one on this issue, I have suggested the US Congress or at minimal the US SC, needs to weigh in and settle where States or Communities with in States can establish independent laws. As mentioned, this issue needs addressing at the National Level, since by Constitution laws pertaining to individual rights must be recognized by all States if legal in one State and was the original intent of the 14th A.

Basically Unions are lobbyist groups, representing those that finance them to both the Company's and government. No different than paying dues to AARP, NRA or any lobbyist group.

The total value of GM/F Stock, this morning is valued (market cap) at about 4B...2.1B F-1.6B GM. What is held by family or the Company I really don't know. If Government started buying common stock, it would create a false value. Whats called preferred Stocks are in fact loans, which as explained have dried up and Government will probably ask for a certain interest rate, which both company's have been paying around 8%. Since preferred investment are loans (creditors), under bankruptcy would be equal in status to all creditors, and paid back as assets are sold, whether under restructuring or going out of business, would happen. "Used properly" under whose opinion. I have heard 50 from members of Congress almost entirely making no sense, or having some political agenda. I understand the idea of giving lavish parties with borrowed money seems a bit strange, but sometimes business as usual is a better strategy then folding the tent, to perception. On you last post; No the world won't end if GM is forced into restructuring by chapter 11. Normally I would agree, but these are not now and for some time to come going to be normal times. The probable end results are very different to any company in good times verses bad. For starters, real estate buyers, investors and those capable or willing to pay market values for assets are limited if exist at all. This includes the Federal as they insure the retirement pools of money to someplace between 60-80%, while expecting a massive decrease in normal tax collections which WILL be effected. On the other side, other Auto manufacturers would increase business, buy some of the dealerships, support to a degree the many suppliers, at worst even many of the GM/F brand names and infrastructures. GM and Ford, would no doubt still exist, possibly as foreign companies doing some business in the US. The best thing is allowing at least a year to complete their retooling, allow the economy to recover (even if somewhat) and allow time for all those that would be affected to seek alternatives.

Not knowing exactly which Union or what Country, which do have related laws to Unions, its hard to address a specific issue. However productivity ratings by Country rate most EU Nations,... well lets say just not the best. Some factors MAY be, mandated work week (hours), mandated vacation or medical time allowed per year and individual competence (firing poor workers) all of which should be at the discretion of the EMPLOYER, at least in my opinion. Its my understanding Governments in the EU have formed laws, opposed to Unions, which effects all business, while in the US, most Business still has control over these issues. I also am told that Unions in the EU are active Parties in the political process, which makes any perceived actions of Unions, then accepted as that of Government, not the Union.

Please remind yourselves, when foreign competition, came into this country (not opposed to), Ford and GM stepped up production of what are classified trucks (Pick ups to all SUV Models) which were at the time less regulated to government requirements (M/G). These models also were in high demand and produced the greatest profits (by far). Both reached their largest Company values during this time and many of the Union Contracts formed during this period. Also remember they were building and selling smaller cars and to compete even then, were selling at near the cost to produce. Also remind yourself, GMAC part of GM, developed into one of the largest 'Financial' in the Nation, supplementing and financing the differential 'labor cost' from that competition. Regulation and government insistence on 'Oil Independence' opposed to actually supplying oil based products from our resources (for what ever reason) and virtually every environmental and protectionist movement has create an anti-American atmosphere where anything opposing their movements an object for criticism. The financial crisis, deepening regulations, some in effect, others proposed, recent high oil prices are contributors to the current dilemma. No business I have ever heard of can Modernize and reduce cost simultaneously, certainly on the level GM is in the process of doing. Retooling to produce a majority of Electric/Battery cars, scheduled for 2010 and 10 plus models with higher M/G (more than any other auto maker) are not inexpensive, especially when the overall economy is trending down. Reducing models is a simple supply/demand equation, where one model (say Olds) has been already deleted and every auto maker thinks they have the best product, or they would not produce them in the first place. Back to the 'bailout' and again note it is a LOAN. Many companies, if not every one in existence, from time to time issues additional stock, issue bonds or has borrowed from Banks or investors to operate during slow periods. These outlets not currently available for a series of reasons, have caused the Big Three and hundreds of other business to request from an only remaining viable source...The Government. Its been my belief, government (all of them, City to State to Federal) that has caused the problem and when practical (3 Million households) its up to them to supply that source. Where I get off the boat and fast, is when government then tries to dictate, what and how that money is used, by added regulation, added mandates and in short telling business what to produce and perform daily business.

With all due respect, would some one please tell me what any increase in taxes on any product or from who paid, has done to DECREASE the deficit. Congress has any number of programs ready and waiting for new revenue. The only real decreases came in the late 90's, per budgeted expense, when Federal government was virtually shut down. It's been said, if the Federal just held spending to to the previous year plus inflation, the deficit would not exist. I'll bet this won't hold true for 2009, but whats said... The Federal or National Debt is the real problem and only has one solution, whether others would help or not to decrease this figure...Congress, just reduce, not maintain, spending. Efforts along this line have also failed, at least to the tax payer. When a new program is invented or money required to fund, Congress just mandates States to pay for something, an extra 26 weeks for unemployment benefits, adding eligibility to some welfare program, some school program, never increasing the funds to pay the actual cost. On the 'War on Drugs', I agree but for practical reasons and no less than beer, liquor or any perceived (?) vice, people will be people and legislating morals will never work in a free society. bascule; How can you tax foreign labor? You might mean in the US and assume then illegal immigrants, but wonder how much is lost to Federal Government in those pay scales. Then there would be a probability (under law) those workers and their employers pay most to near all...not always collecting the benefits.

Unions Captain P, in the US are subject to individual State Law. Right to work, or not join a Union are very different and subject to certain business. Here we also have very different standards of living from one State to another. Cost of living in Oklahoma may be half of California or NY, but Union Contracts are for the total workforce of a particular company. That is, the worker in NY may require a certain wage, just to maintain living in NY where in Oklahoma that same wage is four, five times what would attract any number of workers. Unions lost their cost/efficiency ratings to business productivity years ago. As for your ingenuity argument; GM and Ford, have been working on or with Government for at least 10 years. GM on electric cars and Ford with bio fuels. Ford at one time planned to build an infrastructure along Interstates to handle and both have been working with Oil Companies to install Electric/Battery services. As for producing products the public will purchase; Yes, they made an error in predicting just when Gas would reach 5.00 per gallon or that States would annually add tax to that product. In Europe, taxes make up the majority of fuel cost and have for some time. For instance, TODAY, the cost per gallon (liter ?) is 1.20 per from the refinery. Our average today for all States about 2.30 or so, and you can determine what you pay, that is actually petrol cost. Another factor; In most places in the US, the average drive time to and from anyplace can be hundreds of miles and vacations, especially for families, thousands of miles. Comfort an issue and always safety is important driving along next to 40 ton trucks with your car. Markets for big cars, still exist and especially small trucks where business is often an issue, farming and the like. Ford/GM, are selling good in developing countries and its these big cars being bought, as well. Phi for All; The average family bread winner, will change jobs seven (7) times in their working lifetime. Teamster members, plumbers, teachers and the many professions represented by some Union are no exception and their retirement packages are handled by the Unions. This to me shows no interest in the Company/Employee relationship which should be in the interest of the Union. Japanese or German Auto makers in the US are not settling into Union States. They are here to avoid the same problems in their home country and the NEW cost of transportation with most all parts being shipped around and where the markets are. Today, parts to produce component are shipped into an area, those components then shipped to manufacturers and the final products shipped again. Back with 10-20.00 per barrel crude and where the factories produced their own components, the final cost to get into the markets was simple more cost efficient. I have added all this to clarify my opinion, the US two largest auto makers, can pull through this and IMO will. How then the question and have addressed. If the 'bailout' really only a 25B LOAN and probably only lasting 6-12 months before a result must be seen, the cost to the over all economy, would be money well spent, if they can be reorganized. I have no idea how much that 25B will mean for those 3 million families or for the communities they live in or the return to Federal, via taxes, but it would seem to me it should dwarf that 25B figure...

Unions Captain P, in the US are subject to individual State Law. Right to work, or not join a Union are very different and subject to certain business. Here we also have very different standards of living from one State to another. Cost of living in Oklahoma may be half of California or NY, but Union Contracts are for the total workforce of a particular company. That is, the worker in NY may require a certain wage, just to maintain living in NY where in Oklahoma that same wage is four, five times what would attract any number of workers. Unions lost their cost/efficiency ratings to business productivity years ago. As for your ingenuity argument; GM and Ford, have been working on or with Government for at least 10 years. GM on electric cars and Ford with bio fuels. Ford at one time planned to build an infrastructure along Interstates to handle and both have been working with Oil Companies to install Electric/Battery services. As for producing products the public will purchase; Yes, they made an error in predicting just when Gas would reach 5.00 per gallon or that States would annually add tax to that product. In Europe, taxes make up the majority of fuel cost and have for some time. For instance, TODAY, the cost per gallon (liter ?) is 1.20 per from the refinery. Our average today for all States about 2.30 or so, and you can determine what you pay, that is actually petrol cost. Another factor; In most places in the US, the average drive time to and from anyplace can be hundreds of miles and vacations, especially for families, thousands of miles. Comfort an issue and always safety is important driving along next to 40 ton trucks with your car. Markets for big cars, still exist and especially small trucks where business is often an issue, farming and the like. Ford/GM, are selling good in developing countries and its these big cars being bought, as well. Phi for All; The average family bread winner, will change jobs seven (7) times in their working lifetime. Teamster members, plumbers, teachers and the many professions represented by some Union are no exception and their retirement packages are handled by the Unions. This to me shows no interest in the Company/Employee relationship which should be in the interest of the Union. Japanese or German Auto makers in the US are not settling into Union States. They are here to avoid the same problems in their home country and the NEW cost of transportation with most all parts being shipped around and where the markets are. Today, parts to produce component are shipped into an area, those components then shipped to manufacturers and the final products shipped again. Back with 10-20.00 per barrel crude and where the factories produced their own components, the final cost to get into the markets was simple more cost efficient. I have added all this to clarify my opinion, the US two largest auto makers, can pull through this and IMO will. How then the question and have addressed. If the 'bailout' really only a 25B LOAN and probably only lasting 6-12 months before a result must be seen, the cost to the over all economy, would be money well spent, if they can be reorganized. I have no idea how much that 25B will mean for those 3 million families or for the communities they live in or the return to Federal, via taxes, but it would seem to me it should dwarf that 25B figure...

Basically, it's hard to disagree with the argument iNow is making. Not only for the active auto makers, but the retired workers and both union member and retired management, somewhere around 3 million households. In turn these folks support local government around this country and in short those economies. The problem is the causes for the big 3 being where they are, are not going to be fixed and they have little to no advantage over unions to cause a correction. Keep in mind most all suppliers to the big three also supply other manufacturers and though hurt will still be operational. On th other side, GM and Ford are actually doing just fine overseas (may were) showing profits, feeding the unions here in the US. Then there are two bailouts, each with 25B, one for retooling, the other for union expenses owed by them. One would be wasted if the other not enacted or the reverse and the potential loss of all. Most opponents to the bailouts, feel under Chapter 11, these Companies will or at least could merge or restructure union contracts and cut cost under the guidance of a judge. IMO, although the least likely is a group buy-out, which is where Chrysler is today, a private Company. The market value today for GM is under 2B, about 1.7. If Soros, Buffett or some group of investors wanted, they could probably buy GM for 10B, which is no where near the value of the real estate alone, much less machinery and all involved in production and many currently unused factories. They would not have a judge involved and have leverage over the unions. The purchase of a company involves debt, or agreement with the debt holders, which the unions are just one. The buy out then subject to these pre arranged agreements. Hypothetical then, you would have a new owner of a company the US has already agreed to retool under a LOAN of 25B at a purchase price of 10B and with a real business value of 2B. If this makes no sense, I would agree, but the reality of the problems, Congress is addressing pro or con the bailouts...

Suppose this is some form of reverse psychology to argument supporting 'same sex' marriage. Factually there are again NO LAWS, forbidding much of that you suggest. People can live in communes of any number or make up...one man ten women, one woman ten men or any configuration, so long as other law is not broken. Some society still allows inter marriage with in the family and doubt any county clerk has ever asked a couple if they are cousins, sisters or whatever. As for bestiality, unless you harm an animal its legal every where and in most place there is no law if some harm is perceived. Take sex out of the question and millions of couples already live together, for a variety of reason and in Elderly Homes hundreds mingle daily in friendships, dare guessing some going sexual. If anything maybe grant/benefit laws or eligibility should be singular in total, or at least under common law where proving partnerships can establish a required minimal time line, the benefit then granted. Until then restrictions are to protect the majority from what others would no doubt do, to gain some tax write off or get placed on the Company Group Insurance Policy or the hundreds of legal implications granted traditional couples. I could get cynical and suggest many women marry today, have a kid or two taking advantage of the legal marriage system, get divorced, go on welfare and collect child support, alimony or all three...