Weirton Steel plan cuts (950) jobs, (10,000) pensions

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2003100734/

Weirton Steel Corp. would eliminate 950 jobs — nearly one-third of its work force — and terminate an underfunded pension and health-care plan that covers 10,000 retirees and their dependents, according to a reorganization plan filed late Tuesday with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wheeling.

For the first time, the company acknowledges in the documents that it has been negotiating a possible sale with a new industry giant, International Steel Group Inc. of Cleveland.

Tucked into one paragraph among hundreds of pages in the filing is a reference to “the sale process and the status of discussions with ISG,’’ a company built from the remains of other down-and-out steel makers.

<snip>

Other steel companies, including Bethlehem and LTV, have used bankruptcy partly to be freed of obligations to retirees.

...more...

We're loosing more jobs and more jobs!!!!!!!!
It's a MIRACLE, PRAISE THE LORD!!!!! THANK THE "GREAT" DUBYA!!!

(satire)


:eyes:

And that's just the total from the two layoff-related posts I've seen so far on LBN.

Gosh, can't wait 'till the recovery REALLY gets going.

That's just the most recent big layoff in this state.

I enjoy cheap consumer goods, but, I also want to see the US export products rather than jobs.

That's a good start. Then a buck a Barbie ... fifty bucks per toyota, etc. ... all to fund US Manufacturing efforts.

to use the bankruptcies to free their obligations to their retirees. Once they ditch these legacy costs, the profits start rolling in and the execs and stockholders can begin making money again — all at the expense of the working class people on whose backs and sweat the companies were built.

My dad was a union steelworker and his pension — meager as it is — seems safe for now. But it is because of this that I have a keen interest in this topic. These workers are getting so screwed and an even worse situation is brewing.

Imagine working your entire life at a company with the promise of a secure retirement and a health-care package. These aren't slackers who didn't take "personal responsibility" as the repigs are so fond of saying. They played by the rules and did what they were told. They worked hard and relied on the promises made to them.

Now, all of a sudden, they have it ALL snatched from them and they can't do a thing about it the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) takes over their pensions, but often at reduced rates.

On top of this, most of the retirees had health care for themselves and their spouses negotiated through their unions. They also lose these benefits in the bankruptcy. If they're not eligible for Medicare yet, they can't afford private insurance. They also lose all of their coverage for prescription drugs.

Basically, it's way for the corporations to keep the profits while pushing all of the liabilities and obligations on the backs of taxpayers and workers.

The problem is that there is a fiscal crisis looming at the PBGC. With more and more companies employing this tactic:

The head of the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) raised the specter of a crisis in the government-insured pension system that could make the savings and loan bailout of the 1980s pale in comparison.

In testimony before Congress earlier this month (September 4), Steven Kandarian, the federal pension insurance agency’s executive director, estimated the total underfunding of pension obligations at a whopping $400 billion at the end of 2002, up from a previous record $150 billion in 2001. These huge shortfalls result in large measure from losses on pension funds invested in the stock market along with record low interest rates. With their focus on the bottom line, companies have held back making payments to restore depleted pension funds.

Kandarian also noted that the PBGC’s own accounts had gone from a surplus of $7.7 billion in 2001 to a deficit of $3.6 billion at the end of 2002. The one-year loss of $11.3 billion is five times larger than the largest loss ever previously incurred in the 28-year history of the agency. Preliminary figures show that the deficit has continued to skyrocket in 2003, standing at $5.7 billion as of July 31.

The record loss occurred due to the aggressive use of bankruptcy filings by major corporations to offload their liabilities and sharply reduce labor costs. Bankruptcy court judges authorized three steel companies—National Steel, LTV Steel and Bethlehem Steel—to terminate their pension plans, forcing the PBGC to assume unfunded liabilities of $7.1 billion for these three plans alone. The companies then sold their assets to competitors, free of responsibility for their former workers.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pens-s25.shtml

so that you wouldn't have to. and now he is being cheated.

They worked hard for those pensions and agreed to the pensions instead of higher wages, in order to provide for their retirement. The pensions are a form of "deferred compensation" for the workers.

What's interesting is that executives have a different pension plan for themselves and they also have other forms of deferred compensation. Sometimes the executive pension plan is structured in such a way that it is fully funded and cannot be cancelled or eliminated (even through bankruptcy). American Airlines is one of the companies that set up that kind of executive pension plan for its CEO and others.

You can blame your Congress, your elected representatives, for passing legislation allowing companies to seriously underfund their pension obligations. And in recent years they've approved several revisions to allow even greater underfunding. And companies are now asking Congress to increase the amount of underfunding that is permitted because they don't want to have to pay into the current pension funds to bring them up to the 80% level.

If a company's investments do really well and the pension fund is overfunded, they can take out all of that "overfunding" as well as the amount between 100% and 80% of funding.

The net effect is that pensions are always underfunded and never overfunded. Why would anyone be surprised that there's not enough money in the pension funds?

We've allowed this and we're going to suffer for this, and we're going to suffer "big-time" as Cheney would say.

Telling people to call their reps and support more tariffs. The ad makes Bush look like a hero to the steel industry. These short-sighted idiots should consider how their company is doing now compared to under Clinton. I don't care if they go under completely. The people of WV deserve a swift kick to the nuts for giving their poor state to Bush.

CLINTON AND GORE CAME TO THIS AREA IN 1992 AND PROMISSED TO SUPPORT
FAIR TRADE IN STEEL. CLINTON THEN PASSED NAFTA AND WOULD DO NOTHING
ABOUT THE UNFAIR STEEL DUMPING. WHEELING PITTSBURGH STEEL HAS COME OUT
OF BANKRUPCY BECAUSE OF THE STEEL TARIFFS THAT BUSH PUT IN. THE STEEL INDUSTRY WAS ON IT'S LAST LEGS WHEN BUSH GOT IN OFFICE AND WHEELING
PITTSBURGH AND WEIRTON WOULD BOTH BE OUT OF BUISINESS IF BUSH WOULDN'T HAVE PUT THE STEEL TARIFFS IN. THAT IS WHY GORE DIDN'T CARRY WV OR PA. IN SHORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS DONE JUST AS MUCH AS THE REPUBLICANS IN DESTROYING AMERICAN JOBS.

So who is to blame for all of the mills being shut down in Pittsburgh? This happened a bit before the Clinton/Gore era if my memory serves me correctly. You spew the same bullshit that other laid off steel workers I know are saying. The companies are the ones to blame. They decided that it would be easier to operate overseas and deal in cheap imports rather than to deal with US workers. Wake up. This is happening in EVERY industry.

BTW, Gore carried PA (and Western PA decisively) in 2000:

BUSH, GEORGE W. (REP) 2,281,127

GORE, AL (DEM) 2,485,967

PHILLIPS, HOWARD (CST) 14,428

BROWNE, HARRY (LIB) 11,248

NADER, RALPH (GRN) 103,392

BUCHANAN, PATRICK J. (REF) 16,023

Wheeling Pittsburgh and Weirton Steel don't have any plants outside the USA. The problem is that US companies are buying products from
overseas that are produced by $.50 an hour labor. The industry moving
out of Pittsburgh in the 70's had little to do with imports. I am not
laid off thanks to GWB. Should we work for $.50 an hour too! Bush will carry the blue states again because the Democrats no longer seem to represent the working people. (NAFTA, WTO, ABORTION, GUN RIGHTS ETC.)

"Bush will carry the blue states again because the Democrats no longer seem to represent the working people."

How does Bush represent the working people? I understand what you are saying though. Both parties have neglected the American workers to appease big business. This accounts for alot of the discussion here on DU about how the DLC and GOP are really very similar. Welcome to DU.

to get out of credit card debt yet companies can file bancruptcy to free themselves out debt to PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THEM LONG ENOUGH TO RETIRE AND EARN A PENSION!!!!!!

This is totally disgusting and it just further shows how protecting big business at the cost of middle america is the #1 priority for Bushco. I am disgusted

;(, ;(, ;(

It really is.

That freed ISG from the "liabilities" of paying the pension and medical benefits to the retirees. If that had not happened, the LTV (old Republic Steel) plant in Cleveland would have closed permanently.

There was talk of the US government taking over the retiree obligations of all of the steel companies, so that companies like ISG do not have an advantage over financially solvent companies like USS and Nucor.

Sarcasm off.

well, a couple of hours north of where I grew up but I know how hard the area's been hit


so much for free trade--the industry is suffering because of foreign countries being able to dump subsidized steel on the US market

Bush did propose tariffs on imported steel and it was supported by Byrd and Rockefeller.

I do blame the company for screwing over the retirees though. They're just as guilty.

I'm not far from all of this at all. This really sucks.

WTO says Bush's steel tariffs break rules · Brussels threatens to retaliate unless Washington backs down

Andrew Osborn in Brussels and Larry Elliott
Saturday July 12, 2003
The Guardian

The European Union and the United States were teetering on the brink of a transatlantic trade war last night after Brussels threatened a $2.2bn package of sanctions unless Washington scrapped steel tariffs ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation yesterday.

Brussels claimed victory in its fight to force President George Bush to drop measures aimed at shoring up his political support in America's industrial heartlands, but the US said it would appeal against the decision.

The world's two biggest trading blocks are already at loggerheads over Europe's anti-GM foods regime and America's tax breaks for multinationals.

Yesterday's ruling comes as EU and US negotiators are attempting to settle their differences in the global trade liberalisation talks.
A WTO disputes panel said American import tariffs of up to 30% on foreign steel could not be justified under global trade rules and that they should be abandoned as soon as possible.

Within minutes, the European commission said it would seek to hit pre-selected US products with retaliatory tariffs worth up to $2.2bn (£1.3bn) a year unless Washington dismantled its offending steel tariffs within five days.

"If and when the US does not comply with this ruling, the EU will impose counter measures," said Arancha Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy.

She said the sanctions, if used, would hit US steel products, textiles and fruit and vegetables.

"We would like to urge the United States to look at the wider picture - all the world's steel exporters are telling them to remove these tariffs. This is not just a partial victory - it is a full victory. The US has been caught red-handed."

The WTO appeared to side with the EU and fellow complainants Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil on every front.

The trade watchdog said the US tariffs, announced by President Bush last March, were in breach of global trade rules in every category.
The US had argued they were necessary to help America's steel industry recover from a wave of cheap Asian and European imports, but the WTO said it had found little evidence to show foreign imports had dramatically increased.

Washington also contended that its hand had been forced by sudden and unforeseen circumstances, but again the WTO disagreed.
Nor did it concur US steel producers had suffered any major economic injury because of alleged floods of foreign imports.

US trade representative spokesman Richard Mills said: "Where the panel found against the United States, we disagree, and we will appeal. In the meantime, the steel safeguard measures will remain in place."

Washington now has 60 days to appeal the ruling, and may delay doing so until the last moment in an attempt to defuse some of the tension ahead of the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in September.
Ms Gonzalez struck one conciliatory note when she said the commission remained ready, despite the dispute, to work constructively with the US and the OECD to tackle what she called the real problems affecting the US steel industry - global overcapacity and domestic subsidies.
To rub salt in Washington's wounds, the WTO also stated that an American decision to exclude preferred trading partners Canada, Mexico, Israel and Jordan from the offending tariffs flew in the face of its rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was done on July 12, the U.S. had 60 days to respond to the complaints of the WTO. The day came and went on Sept 12. If you look, Bush does not like to play by the rules. It does not matter if you like or don't like NAFTA or the WTO, we are part of those and Bush does not want to follow the rules. He is not trying to change the rules, he is just breaking them. Then there is this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush
Move to Aid Mills, Gain Votes in 2 States Is Called Political and Economic Mistake

By Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 19, 2003; Page A01

In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.
Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users. Politically, the strategy failed to produce union endorsements and appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee -- also states at the heart of his 2004 strategy.

"They tried to play politics, and it looked like it was working for awhile," said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with ties to the administration. "But now it's fallen apart."

The issue is being brought to a boil by the scheduled release today of voluminous progress reports by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC's mid-session assessment of the three-year tariff program's impact will examine not only the tariffs' effects on the steel industry but also on the hard-pressed manufacturers that shape steel into products.

White House officials said Bush will not make a decision until he has digested the ITC reports. But his top economic advisers have united to recomend that the tariffs be lifted or substantially rolled back this fall, and several administration officials said it is likely he will go along. The retreat would roil the political and economic landscape of the Rust Belt, where both parties expect the presidential election to be won and lost.

It also could produce a tidal wave of negative publicity in West Virginia, a traditionally Democratic state that Bush won by 6 percentage points, and Pennsylvania, which Bush lost by 5 percentage points and had targeted as one of his most promising possible pickups for 2004.

"The only reason they won't do it is if they're unwilling to admit they made a mistake," said a Republican strategist who works closely with the White House.

Administration officials said the office of Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was a vocal and energetic advocate of tariffs during the debate last winter. Rove became so identified with the duties that a Wall Street Journal editorial calling for their repeal was headlined, "Steel Thyself, Karl Rove."

Republican lawmakers from steel states said Bush is considering compromises that would increase the number of exclusions from the tariffs, easing prices for steel buyers.

Administration officials are careful to say they see both sides of the argument. "A healthy steel industry is important to this country," said Grant Aldonas, undersecretary of commerce for international trade, in an interview. "But the small- and medium-sized guys who bend metal for a living have a real complaint about the steel tariffs. There's no doubt about that. We can't hide from it."

Even as they express their sympathies, however, they make no apologies for the tariffs -- or trade "safeguards," as the administration prefers to call them. "It's important to recognize these safeguards have had an adverse impact on consumers -- that's why safeguards are used sparingly," a senior U.S. trade official said. "But the president thought that on balance the benefits would outweigh the costs, and the story of the last 18 months has borne that out."

That conclusion is subject to fierce debate. A study backed by steel-using companies concluded that by the end of last year, higher steel prices had cost the country about 200,000 manufacturing jobs, many of which went to China. Small machine-tool and metal stamping shops say they have been decimated by steel costs that rose in some cases by as much as 30 percent.

Steel producers have their own job numbers. Investments that flooded into the protected steel industry over the past 18 months brought idled steel mills back on line and kept teetering mills from shutting down, said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business professor hired by the steel producers. That resurrected 16,000 steel jobs, and more than 30,000 jobs when steel suppliers are included.

Gary Hufbauer, a critic of the tariffs at the Institute for International Economics, said that both sides are exaggerating their numbers. The steel industry has added some jobs in the past 18 months, but not because of the steel tariffs. Steel consumers have shed jobs because of the tariffs, but he said the number was probably 15,000 to 20,000.

But in this case, the facts may be less important than the perception in key states where the tariffs have been debilitating. The tariffs failed to give Bush the allegiance of the United Steelworkers of America, the industry's largest union and one the White House had hoped to win over. In August, the union endorsed Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) for president and issued a statement saying any of the Democratic candidates would offer better than "the reactionary policies of the current administration."

Perhaps worse for Bush, the tariffs alienated thousands of small businessmen who run steel-consuming companies. "He didn't win the steelworkers over, and he sure as hell didn't win the users over, and there are a hell of lot more of us," said Jim Zawacki, chief executive of G.R. Spring & Stamping, Inc., a small manufacturer in Grand Rapids, Mich. "A lot of people feel burned," said Mike Lynch, vice president of government affairs at Illinois Tool Works, a large machine tool company outside Chicago.

Political divisions over the tariffs remain fierce, even within the GOP. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who talked to Bush about the issue this week, contends the tariffs "are saving thousand of jobs in the steel industry, and you had a steel industry headed for more bankruptcies."
-----------------------------------------
This one is telling. He is costing jobs, not creating.
-----------------------------------------
Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), however, insists the tariffs have "shifted more steel-consuming jobs overseas than exist in the steel-producing industry in the United States," causing thousands of layoffs and closing the doors of hundreds of small businesses that supply automakers in Tennessee, a state that Bush won by just 4 percentage points and is counting on for his reelection.

But among Bush's economic team, opposition to the tariffs has hardened substantially. Administration officials said Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, one of Bush's closest friends, thinks the tariffs should be lifted as a way of showing that the administration has heard the pain of manufacturers, who account for 2.5 million of the more than 2.7 million jobs lost during Bush's presidency.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, chief economic adviser Stephen Friedman and N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, are said to agree.

That marks a significant change from 18 months ago, when R. Glenn Hubbard, then chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, drafted detailed analyses against the tariffs, including state-by-state job losses that he forecast for manufacturing.

But the economic team was fractured. Evans was torn between the steel industries and the steel users. He ultimately decided against the tariffs, but with caveats that the White House political team took as a sign of weakness, former administration economic officials say.

Likewise, then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill expressed philosophical opposition to tariffs, but he was more interested in opening talks with allies on limiting steel production capacity abroad.

At a crucial meeting of the economic team, tariff opponents said they were abandoned. O'Neill sent his undersecretary for international affairs, John Taylor. Then-Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. told Hubbard, who also has since left the administration, that he would back him, but left the meeting before Hubbard's presentation. And Lawrence Lindsey, the famously opinionated chairman of the White House National Economic Council, decided his role was to facilitate the discussion, not express an opinion.

Perhaps most importantly, former Bush economic advisers said, Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, supported the tariffs, figuring that backing them would win congressional votes to give Bush "fast track" trade negotiation powers. Indeed, Congress did hand the president that win. Zoellick also calculated that the lucrative subsidies backed by Bush that year in the massive farm bill would help the cause of free trade, by giving the United States a chip to bargain with at the World Trade Organization's upcoming round of talks to eliminate farm subsidies.

But, trade experts say, Zoellick's calculations have had mixed results. "Fast track" trade powers have allowed Bush to conclude free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, but those have yet to show results in terms of jobs. And last week, WTO trade talks in Mexico fell apart after poor countries concluded the United States and other Western nations were not serious about cutting farm subsidies.
The strategizing was "too clever by half," Bartlett, the economist, said. "It presupposed that nobody was watching what we were doing, and it presupposed that our credibility was of no importance."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

BUSH MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN ANY UNION ENDORSEMENTS, BUT THE RANK AND FILE WILL VOTE FOR HIM. WHAT IF THEY FOUND SOMEONE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY TO DO YOUR JOB FOR A FEW HUNDRED A YEAR. THEY ARE EVEN OUT-SOURCEING WHITE COLLAR JOBS OVERSEAS NOW. AND IN THIS COUNTRY THE ILLEGALS ARE FORCEING WAGES DOWN NOW. GO TO WALMART AND FIND AN AMERICAN PRODUCT!

First turn off your caps lock, it it irritating that you have no manners, this was addressed to you in an earlier post. Second, business is outsourcing jobs and Bush is supporting it, he feels it is business friendly. He could hold business to a higher standard but he won't. Over the states protest, Bush told India that he would still send jobs there. He is not trying to help the American worker, he is trying to make business owners richer. Mostly your large businesses. The mom and pop stores do not outsource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US gives India assurance on outsourcing
TIMES NEWS NETWORK< SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 2003 10:01:26 AM >
WASHINGTON: The Indian government and businesses have won a major assurance from the Bush Administration on the issue of outsourcing.

A senior US official has said Washington is against any attempt by state governments to legislate a ban on outsourcing on the lines of what is being considered in New Jersey and other states.

The official, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, gave this assurance in course of three hours of intensive talks with Indian Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley, during which they discussed subjects ranging from the movement of people to the export of Indian mangoes to the US.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"AND IN THIS COUNTRY THE ILLEGALS ARE FORCEING WAGES DOWN NOW"
I would have to say you are wrong on this one. The workers are not demanding a lower wage, the business owners are paying a lower wage. This is part of the reason they outsource to India and other third world countries.

GO TO WALMART AND FIND AN AMERICAN PRODUCT!
This is once again the cheap labor republican ethic. Find the cheapest labor you can. They would rather hire a sweat shop then pay an American to work. Here is something interesting, buy a Honda and it is made in the U.S., buy a ford and its parts are made everywhere but the U.S. You will employ and support more Americans by buying a Honda then a Ford.

BUSH MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN ANY UNION ENDORSEMENTS, BUT THE RANK AND FILE WILL VOTE FOR HIM.
Bush lost the popular vote last time, his approval ratings now are just as low if not lower then they were in 2000. Especially his approval on the economy. The people who follow Bush are those that watch FOX news. This point was supported by a University of Maryland study released last week and published in a Philidelphia newspaper and on their online site Phillyonline.com. It was also brought up in this study that these same people are misinformed. This particular group of FOX watchers had the biggest misconceptions about what was going on in the world. FOX earlier this year won a court case that said they were not responsible for telling the truth. Fair and balanced and misleading as hell. In addition one should note that not getting a union endoresment repeatedly should let you know that the person is not worker friendly.

If you had read my earlier post you would have noted that even the republicans are saying that his policys are hurting the American worker.

But there isn't much difference with the Democrats anymore, they have
bought into the free trade anti-union mindset also. Believe me I
work in a union shop and the rank and file will support Bush, they don't feal the Democrats represent them anymore.
You say the illegals don't drive down our wages and blame the companies. In this area Walmart just built a new distribution center, all non-union and illegal labor! Then Americans shop in their stores anyway. They say the Mexicans do work Americans won't do. If you paid an American a good wage to pick fruit or whatever they would do the job. If someone is willing to work for nothing you can't blame the companies for hireing them. Minimum wage is big bucks for a Mexican that has to work for $.50 in his country.
Sorry didn't know about the cap locks, new at this!

"They say the Mexicans do work Americans won't do. If you paid an American a good wage to pick fruit or whatever they would do the job. If someone is willing to work for nothing you can't blame the companies for hireing them. Minimum wage is big bucks for a Mexican that has to work for $.50 in his country."

That is my point exactly, if Wal-Mart were to pay these guys $20 an hour they would be swamped with American workers. Wal-Mart is trying to pass off this work at something close to minimum wage. The worker is not asking for this, the company is offering it. So who applies? the non-American citizen. This is the mantra of the cheap labor republican. Pay them dirt and tell them they should be happy to have a job. Wal-Mart has some of the richest people in the world running the company. They have a policy of giving almost nothing in benifits to the employees, yet Bush does not hold them to a higher standard. They get huge tax breaks, they give their executives large bonuses and they give the people tht make this company work nothing. Bush could hold them to a higher standard, but he won't do it. If people were educated to the way that Bush was destroying this country they would not support him.

Just yesterday I went to a Mexican fast food chain that has just opened in Pittsburgh called Baja Fresh. They are owned by Wendy's (Dave Thomas was a big GOP supporter). I lived in CA for awhile and there were probably 50 Baja Fresh restaurants all staffed by Hispanics that didn't know English very well. This is expected in CA. However, I noticed in Pittsburgh that all of the workers were also non-native Hispanics. In Pittsburgh (a city with a VERY small Hispanic population) that means a lot. I'd be willing to bet that they are hiring illegals from elsewhere to work for minimum wage or less.

My mother recently mentioned that she noticed a lot of Spanish speaking workers at the local Wal Mart. I also know several guys that work at a local machine shop that are from Mexico and I've shared a few drinks with them, and knowing some Spanish, I've been able to get some of the dirt from them. They are being recruited to work in shit jobs for little money. But to them it's a lot. There is no racial motivation in my post whatsoever. I just know that Pittsburgh does NOT have a large Hispanic population and I've noticed a HUGE increase in their presence lately.

He wants to end it all for the middleclass and the poor! To Bush and his pals, the middleclass/poor are subhuman and are expendable! Bush will use them to fight the oil wars, after all, they are not human! They are not "blue blood"!