Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[digitaldog]

It's easy to tell the truth in a few words.

He did.

[Alan Klein]

Never one to miss an opportunity to misquote; quote out of context; or simply make up statements and attribute them to others.

An accurate quote in context would be:

In 1981, following the March 30 assassination attempt on Reagan, Haig asserted before reporters, "I am in control here" as a result of Reagan's hospitalization, indicating that, while President Reagan had not "transferred the helm," Haig was in fact directing White House crisis management until Vice President George Bush arrived in Washington to assume that role.

"Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state in that order, and should the president decide he wants to transfer the helm to the vice president, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the vice president and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course."

— Alexander Haig, "Alexander Haig", autobiographical profile in Time magazine, April 2, 1984

You ought to read the constitution,  Haig was wrong when he said power goes to the Secretary of State which he was at the time.  It goes to the Speaker of the House after the VP.  So Haig misquoted the constitution and so did you.  Haig assumed power he did not have. 

[TechTalk]

So Haig misquoted the constitution and so did you.

I quoted Haig NOT the Constitution. So... you just misquoted me and out of context... as is your habit.

Also... presidential succession beyond the vice-president is NOT in the Constitution. It's by federal statute. You ought to read the constitution.

[LesPalenik]

This was a democratic political payoff to unions for their support in votes and campaign donations to the Democrats.  Your usual use of longwinded verbiage to rewrite history doesn't change that fact.

That's the obvious and most logical explanation.
How else can you explain that a unionized car manufacturer based outside USA making a hybrid with a tiny battery gets a bigger credit than a non-unionized pure EV manufacturer based in USA?

[Alan Klein]

I quoted Haig NOT the Constitution. So... you just misquoted me and out of context... as is your habit.

Also... presidential succession beyond the vice-president is NOT in the Constitution. It's by federal statute. You ought to read the constitution.

A distinction without a difference.  The constitution gives Congress the power to establish the line of succession.  So constitutionally by statute of Congress, the Speaker of the House is in line after the VP, not the Secretary of State.  So Haig was wrong constitutionally and by Federal Statute. He should have sent a car for the Speaker to come to the White House to avoid confusion and concern with who was legally in charge. Instead, he claimed he was in control, which sounds like being in charge to most people..

[digitaldog]

A distinction without a difference.

A distinction you didn't understand. Nothing new here.

[TechTalk]

Haig assumed power he did not have.

Haig didn't assume any power and he made that clear in his statement. It's you making that assumption; for reasons only you can know.

[Alan Klein]

That's the obvious and most logical explanation.
How else can you explain that a unionized car manufacturer based outside USA making a hybrid with a tiny battery gets a bigger credit than a non-unionized pure EV manufacturer based in USA?

Apparently, democrats think union workers making hybrid autos are more important than pure EV's protecting the climate better.  Just more hypocrisy.

[Alan Klein]

Haig didn't assume any power and he made that clear in his statement. It's you making that assumption; for reasons only you can know.

I was alive and remember the incident and watched his speech from the White House. It came off like he was running the government.  Most people took him seriously and thought he was in charge.  He had that type of personality as well.   The Democrats made a huge stink about it at the time and damaged Haig and Reagan. For you to make light of it now doesn't comport with history.

[TechTalk]

He should have sent a car for the Speaker to come to the White House to avoid confusion and concern with who was legally in charge.

That's really grasping at straws to cover your tracks and is completely ridiculous! NO ONE's position or authority changed! There was no succession. Reagan didn't transfer his authority to anyone ["should the president decide he wants to transfer the helm to the vice president, he will do so. He has not done that"—Haig].

Instead, he claimed he was in control,

Secretary of State Haig was the highest ranking executive branch officer available to manage the White House Crisis Team until VP Bush returned to the White House. [..."pending return of the vice president and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course."—Haig]

which sounds like being in charge to most people..

You hear only the parts that you want to hear. Thankfully, you're not "most people".

[Robert Roaldi]

In the latest stimulus proposal the Democrats want to award [have proposed an additional] $4,500 [or less, depending on income level,] check [tax credit to qualified buyers] for each car [of qualified electric vehicles which have a suggested retail price below an established maximum by vehicle type] to unionized automakers [to individual purchasers, if final assembly is domestic and at plants with a qualified employee collective bargaining agreement].

Not only they want to take this credit portion away from the non-unionized EV innovators (Tesla, Lucid, Rivian, ...), [The tax credit goes to individuals that purchase qualifying vehicles as outlined above.] but they call this credit "Domestic Content" [Domestic Assembly] [There is a separate $500 tax credit for "Domestic Content" which requires a minimum of 50% domestic components to be used in final assembly, including battery cells which are required to be solely manufactured in the United States.] instead of "Payback to UAW" [in support of U.S. component manufacturing and in support of U.S. policy, under law (29 U.S. Code § 151) since 1935, for it "to be the policy of the United States" to encourage "the practice and procedure of collective bargaining".]
.
.
.

Geez, that was funny.

[Robert Roaldi]

Apparently, democrats think union workers making hybrid autos are more important than pure EV's protecting the climate better.  Just more hypocrisy.

What?

I've addressed this issue before. When you refer to unionized employees, you make them sound like some unwanted aliens that you'd like to send back to wherever they came from. They're Americans just like you. It's legal to be in a union. They are people and equal citizens to you. You need to get over your prejudice.

[TechTalk]

This was a democratic [Democratic] political payoff to unions for their support in votes and campaign donations to the Democrats.

That's the obvious and most logical explanation.
How else can you explain that a unionized car manufacturer based outside USA making a hybrid with a tiny battery gets a bigger credit than a non-unionized pure EV manufacturer based in USA?

All domestically assembled electric plug-in vehicles are covered by the additional tax credit for any manufacturer with a collective bargaining agreement. *The same proposed legislation eliminates the current phase out of tax credits for manufacturers who have sold over 200,000 plug-in electric vehichles since 2009, which benefits both Tesla and GM.

How many decades of continuous promotion and support for collective bargaining will it require for you to believe that is a rock solid position for the countless majority of Democrats past, present, and future? Unions certainly have understood that for several decades. That's why they have generally given strong support to the Democratic Party—they share the same belief in unions.

It doesn't require some bargain or trade or "payoff" each election cycle when you've already been on the same page for over 80 years.

Democrats have consistently supported and promoted the right, and the value, of collective bargaining by labor before it was established as official U.S. policy in 1935; so, it's not a surprise that they continue to do so.

[TechTalk]

Geez, that was funny.

Thanks... and considerably more accurate in tone and substance in my personal opinion.

[TechTalk]

A distinction without a difference.

A distinction you didn't understand. Nothing new here.

Yep. That's the go to excuse when caught making assertions that are incorrect. It's been recycled so many times, you'd think he'd have worn it out by now.

[Alan Klein]

What?

I've addressed this issue before. When you refer to unionized employees, you make them sound like some unwanted aliens that you'd like to send back to wherever they came from. They're Americans just like you. It's legal to be in a union. They are people and equal citizens to you. You need to get over your prejudice.

All domestically assembled electric plug-in vehicles are covered by the additional tax credit for any manufacturer with a collective bargaining agreement. *The same proposed legislation eliminates the current phase out of tax credits for manufacturers who have sold over 200,000 plug-in electric vehichles since 2009, which benefits both Tesla and GM.

How many decades of continuous promotion and support for collective bargaining will it require for you to believe that is a rock solid position for the countless majority of Democrats past, present, and future? Unions certainly have understood that for several decades. That's why they have generally given strong support to the Democratic Party—they share the same belief in unions.

It doesn't require some bargain or trade or "payoff" each election cycle when you've already been on the same page for over 80 years.

Benefits to union based companies over non=union are picking winners and losers. it;s creating malinvestments.   It has nothing to do with free markets which favor the best companies. That;s what we were discussing. 

[LesPalenik]

In the latest stimulus proposal the Democrats want to award [have proposed an additional] $4,500 [or less, depending on income level,] check [tax credit to qualified buyers] for each car [of qualified electric vehicles which have a suggested retail price below an established maximum by vehicle type] to unionized automakers [to individual purchasers, if final assembly is domestic and at plants with a qualified employee collective bargaining agreement].

Not only they want to take this credit portion away from the non-unionized EV innovators (Tesla, Lucid, Rivian, ...), [The tax credit goes to individuals that purchase qualifying vehicles as outlined above.] but they call this credit "Domestic Content" [Domestic Assembly] [There is a separate $500 tax credit for "Domestic Content" which requires a minimum of 50% domestic components to be used in final assembly, including battery cells which are required to be solely manufactured in the United States.] instead of "Payback to UAW" [in support of U.S. component manufacturing and in support of U.S. policy, under law (29 U.S. Code § 151) since 1935, for it "to be the policy of the United States" to encourage "the practice and procedure of collective bargaining".]

Thank you for the correction. Yes, the $4,500 credit is called Domestic Assembly, not Domestic Content (see the screen shot below).
The fact remains that this credit is meant only for unionized shops (2nd screen shot).

Car manufacturers such as Tesla who pay their employeees twice as much as the unionized factories and award them also equity options, are disqualified from receiving this credit (see the 3rd and 4th screen shots below).

[Robert Roaldi]

The account in Bob Woodward's latest book of Trump's last days in office is eerily reminiscent of the final period of Richard Nixon's presidential administration, which Woodward covered as a young reporter (as, actually, did I).

.
.
.

I never thought the guy was anything other than a flake, but it's still chilling to read that.

[Alan Klein]

Thank you for the correction. Yes, the $4,500 credit is called Domestic Assembly, not Domestic Content (see the screen shot below).
The fact remains that this credit is meant only for unionized shops (2nd screen shot).

Car manufacturers such as Tesla who pay their employeees twice as much as the unionized factories and award them also equity options, are disqualified from receiving this credit (see the 3rd and 4th screen shots below).

the $4500 is peanuts compared to what Biden wants to do with unions in the infrastructure bill. He wants to give the work to contractors who are unionized. That will mean that each project will cost more and less projects will be done overall. It's a complete giveaway to unions at taxpayer expense. Contractors who aren't unionized will suffer even though they pay taxes to.

Again free market is given the short shrift. All kinds of billions given away, playing winners and losers

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/biden-infrastructure-pitch-puts-labor-105800723.html

[Alan Klein]

I never thought the guy was anything other than a flake, but it's still chilling to read that.

Biden's Cut and Run in Afghanistan is more reminiscent of The Cut and Run during Nixon's time in South Vietnam which left that country to fall subsequently to the North Vietnamese communists. So now we have Afghanistan fallling to American enemies the terrorists of the Middle East.  Now Bagram air base may be used by the Chinese Communists. I asked previously if the Bidens might be blackmailed due to the relationship the Bidens had with China.  Could the pullout been a pay off for the blackmail?