Quote Of The Day: UAW's Bob King Connects Republican Extremists With Hitler And Mussolini

by Bertel Schmitt

April 27th, 2011 2:34 AM

quote of the day uaw s bob king connects republican extremists with hitler and

At a meeting of the Automotive Press Association at the old-money, establishment Detroit Athletic Club in downtown Detroit, a stone’s throw from GM’s headquarters, UAW President Bob King warned Detroit auto journalists not to listen to “extremists in the Republican Party,” just like people in Germany and Italy should not have fallen for Hitler and Mussolini.

“The attacks by what I would call extremists in the Republican Party should be of concern…to everybody who believes in a democracy. We know that anybody who looks at history, looks at any developed nation in the world, the only way that middle classes were built in the United States or Canada or Europe or anywhere else, was because of a strong labor movement and a societal understanding of the importance of the institution of collective bargaining. That workers should have the right to a voice at the table.”

“Can a Hitler be more efficient? Can a Mussolini be more efficient? Can a dictatorship be more efficient than a democracy? Yeah, maybe short-term it is. But for the destruction of the society, the destruction of human rights and the destruction of the democracy we believe in, it’s catastrophic. I hope the press really stands up to defend the people’s democratic right to elect their local elected officials and nobody should have the power, in my opinion, to come in and unilaterally wipe them out and put somebody in there who has no accountability to that citizenry. That’s the antipathy of democracy.”

Nobody invoked Godwin’s Law when King said it. So we won’t either.

#BertelSchmitt #BobKing #Hitler #Mussolini #Uaw

Comments

Join the conversation

8 of 132 comments

EricTheOracle on Apr 27, 2011

I evoke Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies which states that the first person to reducto ad Hitlerum automatically loses the argument.

Like Reply
Mtymsi on Apr 27, 2011

I believe the subject matter King's quote is in reference to is Michigan's recently passed emergency financial manager legislation which basically states the Governor can replace elected officials with an emergency financial manager if the municipality/school district is facing bankruptcy and arbitrarily cancel negotiated union contracts. Personally without comment on King or the UAW I don't see how elected officials (mayor, city council etc.) can be arbitrarily replaced by an appointed emergency financial manager stripping the elected officials of their powers. Nor do I see how the appointed emergency financial manager can arbitrarily cancel negotiated union contracts. No doubt this issue is headed to court as soon as the first emergency financial manager is appointed. I fail to see any legal basis for usurping elected officials' powers/cancelling negotiated contracts and I believe that is what King is talking about. Perhaps a very poor choice of analogies on his part but maybe more that rings true than meets the eye. The term taxation without representation comes to mind.

Like Reply
- Doctor olds on Apr 27, 2011
  
  Democrats controlled Michigan's government when these emergency financial managers were created to provide for a process to avoid financial collapse of entities such as municipalities and school districts. The current congress and governor have added definition, but the process is not arbitrary at all. It requires a high threshold of financial insolvency as proven by specific measures, and is in place in 3 cities and 1 school district in Michigan right now. It creates a process to restructure bankrupt entities and allow for their continued function. Bankrupt means they can't pay their bills. All the money is gone. Most of us taxpayers don't care about protecting unsustainable union contractually oblgations. We want these entities to work. Schools tand municipal offices to be open. King wants to protect the public unions whether the taxpayers can afford them or not. No wonder he rails against these (4) emergency managers in a large state. A logical person would have to ask- where would the money come from to honor any contract from a bankrupt entity, anyway? Sorry Ronnie, I couldn't help it.
  
  Like
Golden2husky on Apr 27, 2011

What better way to jump the hits than to grab for some good old political warfare. I'm way too late to the feeding frenzy but consider the comment below: >>> This has to be the most meaningless metric to argue who pays what and what impact it has. What matters is what percentage of your effective earnings are lost to the tax burden. Nobody doubts that the total sum the uberrich pay in taxes is a very large number. But the taxes the average person pays is a far larger percentage of the total income that the average person makes. Therefore, the tax burden has way more of an impact on their lifestyle. The wealthy person's tax bite is a far, far smaller percentage of their income, meaning that taxes are an annoyance but really have minimal impact on their life. So, how is that remotely fair? The ultimate solution is a flat tax. Everybody pays 20% no deductions with the exception of those who are really poor. Right now, the AMT is a cruel hoax on the middle class, screwing those who do well, but are hardly wealthy. The stupidity of the tax system is crazy. But then it was written by those with means to protect those with means. Frankly, it is disgusting.

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- MikeAR on Apr 28, 2011
  
  The tax code is also written by those people who benefit from its complexity.
  
  Like
- Doctor olds on Apr 28, 2011
  
  @golden2husky- Your claim that the rich pay a smaller share of their income is factually inaccurate. A $million income pays almost $350,000-35% to the IRS alone. Government takes more like half of the millionaire's income by the time all taxes and fees are considered. From IRS 1040 taxl tables: A $100,000 income couple pays $17,000- 17%; $50,000=>6.6%; $25,000=>2.9%. In Michigan, a single mother of two with a gross income of $15,000 pays no tax but receives $8,000 back! You can fill in the blanks. All these are taxable income after deductions. That is a place that the rich get some breaks, but those are quickly phased out as income rises. The rich are paying their share already. More importantly tax money is only a parasite on the taxpayers, the real economy that pays for everything. We have developed a system that is crushing the real economy's growth and tax increases will only worsen the problem. We need help the real economy flourish, not tax it to death.
  
  Like
- Ubermensch on Apr 28, 2011
  
  @doctor olds You mean the 'real economy' that is almost 100% dependent on tax funded state power to function? Bailouts, technology research, infrastructure, environmental cleanup, etc... Our economy is based on privatized profits and socialized risks. Our 'real economy' is state capitalism, it is not free market capitalism which can't exist. State capitalism requires a powerful well funded state, which was the priciple behind Reaganomics and everything since.
  
  Like
VanillaDude on Apr 28, 2011

"There is only a certain amount of wealth to spread around." What a shockingly stupid thing to believe, let alone write. It is so fundamentally incorrect, it is like claiming that the Earth is flat.

Like Reply