John, it was from TARP, I was using that as an example of someone who was supposed to be conservative giving public money to a specific private business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

For Stimulus I lumped TARP in with the other seven stimulus payments (starting with the March 2008, $29 Billion to JP Morgan Chase) as a general example of the above.

The auto bailout of $20ish billion in 2010 was a separate payment made by Obama with the backing of Congress. So there's no citation to provide right now(have to get back to work). If you can't find one yourself, let me know and I'll post one.

I believe, in general terms, the auto industry received $24 bil in remaining tarp funds from Bush in '08 (I mistakenly put'10). Congress wouldn't exend monies to them. When Obama came in, they came back with their hands out again. Obama said OK, here's some, but come back with detailed plans to show solvency. When they came back in about March of '09, the admin basically said not good enough and "forced" the bankruptcy A total of $80 billion was doled out, including monies that went to Ally financial (the formeer GMAC) and Chrysler Financial. So far, GM has paid back about $26 billion of the $50b it was given, CHrysler has given back $10 of the $12.5 it got. Ally has given back $2.7 of the $16.2 it got and CHrys financial has given back all $1.5 bil.

The Treasury still owns 33.3% of GM stock, and 6.6% of Chrysler.

In seeing what happened with JP Morgan Chase in the past couple months ($2 bil loss). TARP may not have been that bad an idea. Forget saving the banks, but one has to wonder how much the gov't would have had to dole out to the public in lost deposits that were in essence "gambled away" with those derivitave failures.

I do think that close gov't oversight of the banks is necessary, until they "prove" that they are trustworthy again. After all they are still gambling with OUR federally insured deposits, not just their profits.

John, I would rather the government pay out $500,000 dollars to you as part of the FDIC(for instance) so that you don't lose your life savings than give billions to banks because they made stupid mistakes. All that does is let banks that made bad decisions, keep making them and think they'll be covered, I'd rather they go under and a smaller bank that didn't take stupid risks take their place.

It hurts more in the short term but in the end we're stronger for it. Not to mention it isn't the government's job to keep private entities afloat with our money... that's their CEO's job.

Should read (That is why they are called progressive taxes) The numbers game is the regressive where they raise your evaluation and lower the rate, making you think you pay less until you get the bill and find they actually raised it )sorry lol

Another thing that happened then, just as commonly--
Oog gets the rock to the head,
Gog and his son take over the business.

Moral of the story--
Jack needs to learn more about the history of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Take a balanced view.
Over-regulation of industry dampens industry and innovation...
But total laissez-faire ultimately leads to riots, revolution, and if it goes on long enough,
the poor eating the rich, and snacking on the more comfortable portions of the middle class.
It's a bad scene.

Over-regulation of industry dampens industry and innovation, is how we are today in destroying this country. There is no laissez-faire, it is just the opposite totally with no middle ground, and a real effort to do this on a global scale. That is not good for the US at all. The real monopoly building is more insidius that any business, it is the federal government and globalist.

As for Gog and his son, they are obivously R.I. politicians. There is no such thing as equal balance in business, if there was there would be no competition, the good succeed the ba fail, simple as that.

DownTown, I'm not going to defend Curt Shilling... but his job was to keep his company going, not to practice "Fiscal conservatism". I don't even know if he is a Fiscal Conservative, I know he's a Republican... which means little in that regard.

Though I agree not everything fits into a little square or circle, but I think it's funny that people point that out as if it's some sort of great wisdom that only they figured out, especially when using it to point out absolutely nothing.

Bryan Good luck with your blog.

While I have leanings in both camps, liberal and conservative, this State needs some type of balance away from Liberal politicians and away from crooked politicians.

Thanks, DownTown. I sort of broke my own rule of getting into debates in the comment section here because I end up moving away from my intended goal of informing not convincing or converting... and what is debating but trying to convince someone to change their opinion?

From what you wrote before, I just want to note this is called Ask a Conservative, not ask conservatives. I can only speak for myself here. Luckily other people with similar or totally different viewpoints are letting them be known. So we can all read what other conservatives think, agreeing or disagreeing with me not to mention the moderates and liberals posting comments as well.

Finally, apologies for getting a tad snarky there. The first part of this blog was to illustrate that just because someone is a Republican or they say they are conservative doesn't mean they are one for every issue or really a conservative at all... hopefully that made sense.

I'd rather keep it issues focused and not people focused, the people in this one were just meant as examples of two people, one being a republican that wasn't a conservative, and one being a conservative that didn't act according to commonly held conservative ideals. If you'd like to add Shilling to that list because he accepted tax payer money, be my guest and I do understand where you are coming from in that regard.

That is very true John, especially in this State. It has been due to the mismanagement of this State by the powers that be, and special interest that drove business from this State and continues to do it today.

The dependency on Tourism as the main source of income is doomed to fail. You will never have a living wage for the majority of workers with that model, unless you subsidize it with other programs. It is no laughing mater that it is why Greece has failed as a Country for the exact same reasons as R.I. is failing. We have people in the legislature who believe that making a low wage and being on welfare, subsidized, healthcare, subsidized rent, food stamps etc. equals a decent job. All it does is force a great burden on the taxpayers; it is a disincentive to aspire to higher wage jobs, especially when none exist! But it makes for a great voting block ( the don’t cut my benefits Block).

As with the riots in Greece by those who benefited from the subsidized system and corruption, here too in R.I. they vote the same scum back in to keep the scam going. But like Greece, there comes a tipping point and we are very close to that here as the pension fiasco and many other scams are coming to light. Minimum wage is actually the least of the wage problems in this State. I wish more people would research and follow what really happened in Greece, the parallels to R.I. are striking as hell point for point.

and minimum wage is actually part of the reason for that. when McDonalds has to pay $7.75 an hour for some 16 year old kid to work the register, they do not have the money to pay a shift manager $12 an hour. Same holds true for any lower skilled position. whena company has severl skill ranges, the more the lowest skilled members get paid, means less they can pay the middle skill ranges. minimum wage may actually have done more to foster the rich vs poor divide than anything else.

Actually, companies like McDonalds and Cumberland Farms pay OVER minimum to start because they can't attract quality talent to stay, because they can be so busy. Now granted, it's not much over (say 50 cents) but minimum won't cut it. I don't think those businesses are a good example. If you want to speak to a m&p store, that's another ball of wax.

Again, I said it is good to revisit it periodically (not every yr or even every couple yrs). The last time it was looked at was 5 yrs ago.

I still submit to you that the person that grosses $193.25 for 25 hrs work and is satisfied with that is either;
a. not truely needing the money, or
b. needs to reexamine their priorities.

Though I don't think there really be party in which all the same views of each individual are the same. There is somthing called commonality and common sense. What you have written Richard to me is common sense, in order for this Country to be reclaimed to what it was originaly founded on. Freedom and the rule of Law.

Kind of broad stroke there lol. However everything you posted needs to be done before we can get back to some kind of normalcy. It is surprising that there are people of different ideologies that do not support those bacis tenents you named.

Very well put, Bobby. Thanks.

I disagree. Jobs at a Mc'D's or Cumbys generally pay slightly above minimum not because the job requires more than low skills but because nobody will do the work for $5/hr (would you risk having a gun stuck in your face for $5/hr at 10:30 at nite??). The job is worth not only what an employer is willing to pay, but what employees are willing to work for. Life is a 2 way street. Employers make NOTHING unless there is somebody there willing to do the work necessary for the employer to make money. Also, there is no way to outsource a job like that to the BRIC countries (Brazil, China India or Russia).

I don't take the idea of raising minimum wage lightly. It is valid that raising it puts a pinch on employers. Like I said before, anybody looking to make a living off of flipping burgers needs to set THEIR priorities straight, not looking for a handout from their employer.

Where we lose jobs to overseas is our middle wage mfr'ing, like making appliances, etc. THOSE are the jobs that require a little more skills or are just more dangerous than ringing up items. Jobs that pay $10-12 to start, and top out at $15-18. Those jobs we need around here.

Subaru, VW and Audi are looking to expand into the US. WHy not at Quonset???? They come in there, they can surely leave from there either by train, truck or boat. It is a TOP 10 US port for cars!!!!

Oh, that's right, Carcieri though 38 studios was a better idea and said NIMBY!!!!!

John, great example and further evidence that a free market works. McDonalds competes with other companies for employees from a limited talent tool. They're not able to hire someone for $5/hour because someone else is paying $6. So they increase the wages that they're offering. If they need to lure top talent from another company, they might increase pay to $7/hour.

You might be surprised to learn that some fast food jobs are being outsourced. Some Wendy's stores, including one in Middletown, have begun outsourcing the order taking jobs to a facility in Delaware. When you pull up to the speaker, the person on the other end is actually connected to the store via an internet phone. By having a "call center" where orders are taken, restaurants are able to cut the number of employees the stores need. If someone calls out sick, no problem, there are others available to take the order. Today the call center in in DE, tomorrow it could be in Brazil, China, India, Russia or any other country.

I agree we need more manufacturing jobs in RI and in the US. Lets work to get rid of the rules and regulations that make it so expensive to do business in the United States. Lets make RI a Right to Work state and take steps like they did in Wisconsin to make the state more business friendly.

We agree about 38 Studios. The state should not be guaranteeing loans for anyone.

Bobby, I am ASTONISHED to hear that a "call center" takes a call from a drive up window!!!!

That is where I think that Tim's point about service rings true. Nowadays, companies big and small seem to look for the lowest common denominator in that area. It seems to me to be "How can we get the highest "acceptable" customer satisfaction with minimal cost AND effort?" as opposed to "how can we get the BEST customer service at an "acceptable" cost and effort?". And, we the consumer seem to accept a lower standard of service from the businesses we frequent just because we can save a few pennies here and there.

As to RTW, I am union, and will NEVER accept that. One of the things that we value in this country is our election process. I am going to assume you may have voted for John McCain in the last election. Yet you accept Obama as your lawfully elected president. So why, if a lawfully conducted election takes place in the workplace, and the outcome is not to your liking (union yes), why should you have the "right" to disregard the outcome????

Also, if I vote for union representation and the outcome is NO for a union, should I not have the right to disregard the election result and join the union, and be lawfully represented by them and the company would thereby have to recognize my (our) membership in the union and be required to bargain with me (us)??

John, as a union member, you are ok with forcing someone else to live as you see fit, not as they see fit? that is what happened to me. I took a pay CUT when the union invaded my shop because apparently, being better than everyone is is just not acceptable in a union. You want to union up, fine, leave me out of it, a workplace is NOT a democracy. It is a BUSINESS. RTW is better for everyone, including unions, just not the corrupt unions that want to bleed companies dry and pay union heads 500k a year (teachers union in RI)

Well Dan, if that's the case then just screw the whole process. If I worked in your shop and I wanted union representation, then I and anybody else in that shop should not be denied representation even if 95% of the workforce doesn't want it. RTW is a one way street.....a WRONG way street. If you feel that the union is corrupt, YOU as a member have EVERY RIGHT to do what you can to change that at meetings, up to and including voting the corrupt ones out. If you don't, then you are just another lemming plodding along going "yasser, whatever you say sir", and paying for the priveledge to do so!!!!!!

BTW, I am NOT a public sector employee. I work for a company here in RI that rakes in over $10 BILLION in profits every year, get full paid healthcare, pension, 401k, and top dollar for my services. I put in my 40 hrs a week in conditions that would make some of you puke, and do it with a smile on my face. THANKS to my UNION!!!!

actually, under RTW, you can do that. Just, the business itself is not obligated to negotiate with you. If you like being forced to pay union dues to get the SAME or lower wages than you would have gotten previously. Fine, go right ahead, but do not force me to do the same. when the union came into my steel plant, I was forced to pay $25 a week from my check and take a $75 a week paycut. Most everyone else got about a 25 cent raise, and it cost them $25 a week in union dues. Due to the laws of the state, now they could NOT leave the union and give back that $10 a week raise and keep the $25 the union robbed them. also, because of open voting laws in NJ, every vote was known to the union heads. Intimidation was a significant factor....

a few years back, my wife was a temproary office worker for a small plant in West Warwick. This factory had 6 employees. They decided to unionize and went on strike. 300 people were striking outside the plant/office. while she was driving in on the first day of the strike, a union hired thug smashed a rock through her windshield. the 4 unionized police officers who were standing there "saw nothing". On the 2nd day, her tires were slashed while she was inside working. the company paid to fix both of course, but that was her last day of work. 2 weeks later, the company settled with the union and gave them a contract where they were paid exactly the same as they had been paid before. 3 weeks after that, they laid them all off and shipped the jobs overseas. What small company wants to deal with the mob (union) threatening your business? all of that, and the final result was unemployment for all the employees.

Well there you have it. Sour grapes because a couple goons did you wrong. We do not nor will not condone such actions on our picket lines. When we last struck, I was picket captain, meaning I am resposible for the actions of my co-workers (to an extent, of course) and I was proud of how we conducted ourselves professionally on the street.

What you fail to understand about RTW is if it is wrong to "force" you to bargain collectively, than it is equally WRONG for you to DENY me the right to bargain collectively. If the company can ignore us under RTW, than you in essence DENY ME MY RIGHT to bargain collectively.

One conservative opinionator put it eloquently in regard to the issue of forcing the Catholic Church to offer birth control. If you don't like the conditions of your employment (no birth control bennies) you are FREE to find employment elsewhere. Well if you don't like the terms of your employment (being hired by a closed shop or having the shop go union) you too, are FREE to find employment ELSEWHERE!!!!

Jack, does that mean that any negotiations going forward may not include non union members (like say an added week of vacation) if they were collectively bargained for explicitly for union members?? Also does the union have the right to "charge" a non union employee to be included in the next contract negotiations??

What ever Union Negoiates in the contract, employees, reguardless a member or not, get what ever is in the contract, unless it is specificly for union members through their dues. A specific perk that the Union offers, like say dental, or life insurance through the Union, the non-union employee is not entitled to it. Union can allow them it at full price with no union discount.

As the law States, and contrary to some AFL/CIO sites, you can charge the non-union employee for representation they request at a prevailing rate of the area located. Unless state law forbids it.

You can form a Union in a RTW State, and there are many. However you have to realize a lot of this discussion is not what it seems on either side. There is a big difference, between private sector, Federal, and State Unions. State and Federal being looked at as one and the same all the time and they are far from that.

We use to charge what ever the minimum wage was in the State at the time, per hour we spent on research, and going to meetings for non union. I support RTW States, on the reasoning of freedom of choice. I think the Unions of today are not the Unions of the past and not are the problems. Most of the past problems are now regulated, by government and laws in place nation wide to handle what use to be atrosities.

Fixed because of Unions, but also a reason only 11.8% of the Country is unionized now. 35% of that are State and federal Unions the AFL/CIO get their major funding from now.

Also I am not sure if you can "explicitly for union members" do tht in a contract because of the law though. May be a grey area, I never had that problem in my Union dealings, and do not recall a case before the FLRB on that off hand.

Mind not being what it use to be John, I forgot to say that I dealt with federal labor laws most of my carreer and private and state ones very early on, so I know something of it all but mostly Federal, that may or may not apply to some questions. But the RTW I posted is the legal definition of the law and how it is written in most states. Though lately they are changing it to stricter guide lines where it concerns Benifits such as healthcare and pensions, which I think need addressed soon as possible. Been a pet peeve of mine for a long time, not in private, but state Unions.

My other thing is with the Union Leadership for the most part in the last few decades, as they have lost sight of their jobs, and basicly with their get all you can, have now screwed the younger members totally, by creating unsustainability in the state systems. The younger and new members will suffer for that for decades to come. Thats about the easyest way to say it, with out a long explaination that seems to bother people with me lol.