This is why I was opposed to MAFTA. And I'm opposed to anyother trade treaties.
The only ones that don't get screwed are the countries that we sign the treaty with.
It's past time for our politicians to start looking after Amercia's economy first and quit worrying about other countries economies.

What connection can be drawn from the fact that until very recently (and still the norm in some quarters) vehicles have been getting larger and more powerful yet the work force that builds them is shrinking measureably. Of course bigger does not make better in this case because bigger equates to more fuel and related things.

I wonder what would happen if government fell out of bed with the auto makers and got behind a crusade to build smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, if the work forces would return to their present state.

Steve, I think the public is sending the message to the auto companies concering fuel economy. They've just about quit buying the big SUVs. Now it's up to the manufacturers to improve fuel efficientcy or face even worse financial difficulties than they are now.
Of course not all their curent problems are because of the inefficientcy of the SUVs. But making them more fuel efficient can help a whole heap.

The problem with U.S. automakers is the same problem throughout the U.S. It's very hard to compete with cheap (and educated too) labor making $1 per hour. We can't win, so we'd better be figuring out what we can do that no one else can, and start nurturing it. What if we invented the technology for very fuel efficient automobiles? But, the way it's going, someone else will beat us at being inventive too. We are not educating our young people. The U.S. fell to 26th of 40 nations in testing of college students. Unfortunately, the U.S. has more lawyers and students studying to be lawyers than engineers and scientists.

I have two comments...

1. On the news Friday, GM announced that it is discontinuing its 401 contribution for salaried employees.

2. My son has a young family. A wife, a two year old and a newborn. With the laws as they are regarding car seats, etc. he cannot survive with anything other than a large vehicle. This excludes him from the smaller, generally more efficient vehicles. There will always be a market for the larger "family vehicle".

I prefer a big car myself Steve. I like the way they ride.
Your right that there will be a market for the larger vehciles. But I feel that they can be made a little more fuel effeciant that they are.
The big cars aren't really all that bad though. My wife's Town Car gets 23 to 24 mpg. By comparison I drive a 65 Falcon with a 6 cylinder engine to work most of the time. It gets 28 mpg. And the ride sure aint as good as the Town Cars.
I have an F350 desiel that gets 8 mpg. We also have an Excursion that gets 9 mpg. And it rides just like what it is, a station wagon truck.

David Weller, the problem of the shrinking middle class is compounded by a growing and vastly minimized poverty in this country.

First, any attempt to deal with poverty in America has to include recognition of the GROWING mental illness rate in our population.

A family of 3 living on less $35,000 a year is poor in my opinion, not having the ability to simulataneously, live in a safe house in a safe neighborhood, keep private health insurance, allow for transportation for two persons to work, save for those many unexpected expenses especially if they have a child, and accomodate economic fluctuations like unemployment or spiking energy costs without huge negative and worsening effects on their economic status. But that's just my opinion, let's look at some facts.

From the Children's Defense Fund: (PDF)

However, today 37 million people, including 13 million children, are living in poverty. Although this number is lower than when the "War [on Poverty]" was declared, it represents an unacceptable figure in the richest country in the world.

A 2005 report released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that investing in poverty-reducing programs lifts millions of children and families out of poverty. In 2003 social insurance and means-tested public benefits lifted 27 million people out of poverty, including 5 million children. Despite the noteworthy success of public benefit programs in lifting Americans out of poverty, unacceptable numbers of families and children remain in poverty and poverty rates in the United States exceed those of other wealthy industrialized nations. Many more children and families could be lifted out of poverty if government programs were strengthened and if more families accessed the programs for which they are eligible. A report by the Urban Institute found that if families with children had full access to government programs designed to lift them out of poverty, poverty would decline by more than 20 percent, and extreme poverty would be reduced by 70 percent. Instead, millions of families with children eligible for these programs do not receive the benefits and continue to live in poverty.

Child poverty takes a huge economic toll on our nation. All Americans pay the price -- a price that is far higher than the cost of eradicating poverty. We all have a stake in improving the lives of children in America. ...

In 2004, a family of three was considered to be living in poverty if it had an income of less than $15,219 a year. For a family of four, the poverty level was $19,157.

The very first thing Democrats and Republicans need to do to address poverty is come up with a realistic definition, one which does not minimize the scope of the problem.

The very first reality for politicians to face is that for a family with one parent raising two children, the average annual costs for basic needs sums to $29,976, which is a 2004 figure (ibid) already outdated by rising property rental rates and energy costs. I don't hear any politicians trying to raise the spectre of that reality confronting the future of America. This is a reality which incumbents in Congress refuse to acknowledge or address.

But politicians today, are ALL ABOUT minimizing the negatives aren't they? Therefore, our current poliitical system will not even take the first step to define the severity and scope of the problem. And failing that, they can't devise realistic programs to effectively deal with the problem, now can they?

I applaud immensely the Newt Gingrich Republicans efforts to tie gov't. benefits to recipient efforts to improve their condition as well. It was a great start to dealing with the institutional problem of poverty, and they even got a reluctant Democratic President Clinton to climb on board of that policy.

But before you knew it, the Gingrich reform crowd was out, and the neocons were in, and the policy shifted from a helping hand up, to hiding the problem in the closet behind meaningless statistics designed to minimize and hide the magnitude of the problem. This of course, served neocons need to divert revenues from social programs to war, military buildup, and over seas nation building and anti-poverty programs in places like Pakistan and Iraq.

The reality is, Republicans have abandoned any real efforts to deal with poverty in America, preferring to deal with poverty overseas where it spawns breeding grounds for potential enemies of Americans. How can they be so stupid as to think they are not creating a breeding ground for enemies of the status quo right here in America? Have they forgotten the urban riots, burning, looting and murder in America from 1967 through 1972 in places like Detroit and Watts, Los Angeles, resulting directly from poverty conditions in America? Apparently. History is not a strong suit for the current incumbents who prefer ideological theory and rhetoric to realistic pragmatism.

That period of riots in our history spawned, through Lyndon B. Johnson, the greatest reduction in poverty in America since the post depression era and WWII. Regrettably, it also spawned the greatest dependency upon the welfare system in our history. But, social policy dealing with poverty was a very new social science at that time. We know far, far more about the dynamics of poverty today than in LBJ's time, on issues ranging from housing projects to aid without jobs. But what good is this new body of knowledge with old incumbents accustomed to ignoring and minimizing the tough issues of our time?