Crack ME UP - THANKS BUSH - REPUBLICANS - DEREGULATION - THAT'S RIGHT - I SAID IT

Crack Me Up - urheadiswhere?

Baloney! Obama has at least tripled the MISERY. - Obamas policies are total failures.

Let's see 10 trillion vs 3 trillion - dothemath

How people can read a post that is factual and still try - to blame someone else.. pathetic.nm

I just don't understand how you can say that - Put it in simpler SM

I thanked them a long time ago. Now it's - sm

No, thank Boehner and the House Republicans - Social engineering but no jobs

Wrong! The Dems lost for good reason. At least the - train of bankruptcy was slowed a bit.nm

Where are all those jobs the Republicans promised - sm

jobs - anon

Because of stuff like this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576385980251033122.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

SEATTLE—Lawyers for Boeing Co. and the National Labor Relations Board clashed Tuesday at a hearing on the board's allegations that the aircraft maker illegally shiftedwork from union plants in Washington state to a new non-union factory in South Carolina.

The hearing, which dealt mostly with procedural issues, marked the start of what could be a lengthy and politically charged legal battle, unless Boeing and the company's machinists union, whose complaint sparked the board's inquiry, settle their differences.

The administrative law judge hearing the case urged the parties Tuesday to work toward a settlement.

At stake is the future of a $1 billion factory Boeing recently opened to build its new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. The NLRB alleges that Boeing built the plant in South Carolina, where unions are weak, to punish union workers in Washington state for their past strikes. As evidence, the NLRB cited public comments by Boeing executives.

Boeing asked the judge to dismiss the case as unfounded. "Frankly, we have a hard time understanding the elements" of the NLRB's allegations, said William Kilberg, an outside counsel for the company.

Aside from instances in which Boeing executives were misquoted, Mr. Kilberg said, "We would argue that Boeing's statements are truthful statements of economic realities. Customers don't want production delays caused by strikes."

"A company can certainly establish new facilities in other locations," he added.

Boeing also has challenged NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, arguing that he lacked authority to bring the complaint. Boeing says a provision of the National Labor Relations Act specifies that an acting general counsel can serve for only 60 days before being formally appointed general counsel. Mr. Solomon has served longer than that on an acting basis.

The NLRB contends Mr. Solomon was appointed under a separate law that doesn't make him subject to the 60-day rule.

Administrative Law Judge Clifford Anderson said he wanted to rule on that issue promptly, but didn't give a timetable. He said he expected to see the parties back in the courtroom Wednesday morning.

NLRB lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the case was straightforward and that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has evidence to support its claim that Boeing's decision to locate its new facility in South Carolina was intended to retaliate against legal union activity.

With the nationwide unemployment rate topping 9%, Boeing and political leaders in South Carolina have portrayed the NLRB action against the company as an attack on job creation. "This case casts a shadow over Boeing," Mr. Kilberg told the judge. "It makes life very difficult for Boeing."

Judge Anderson stressed at the hearing that litigating the complaint could take years, especially if the battle went all the way to the Supreme Court. "I'll be retired or dead," he added.

If his decision in the case were to be appealed, the case would next go before the full NLRB, which currently has four members. That appeal alone would take one to three years, the judge said.

Machinists union General Counsel Chris Corson, who wasn't at Tuesday's hearing, has said he prefers to settle, and is open to creative ways to do so. The machinists have proposed dropping their complaint in return for assurances of more work for unionized Boeing employees.

Boeing has rejected that idea. Mr. Kilberg, who is representing the company, said in an interview that "Boeing is always open to a settlement," but not any union proposals to guarantee future work at union facilities.

The case comes as Boeing is juggling a variety of issues that will affect its work force. It has built a temporary Dreamliner "surge line" at its huge factory in Everett, Wash., which it will use for final assembly of the 787 as it brings production at the new South Carolina factory up to speed. By late 2013 Boeing expects to build three Dreamliners a month in South Carolina and seven in Washington.

In the same Washington plant, union workers are also busy building the 777 wide-body jet and the massive 747-8, the latest version of the Boeing's double-deck jumbo jet, which the company is selling in both a freighter and passenger version.

The company also has said it will boost the production of its best-selling 737 narrow-body aircraft to 38 a month by mid-2013 and is weighing a further increase to 42 a month, both record rates. The 737 fuselage is built by union workers at Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kan., and final assembly is completed at Boeing's factory in Renton, Wash., south of Seattle.

The company, which is weighing the future of the 737, could decide to build an all-new airplane while keeping the 737 production line going. The machinists union is concerned that Boeing will choose to move construction of any new plane to a less union-friendly state.

Boeing, meanwhile, is hiring union workers in Washington state to build the Air Force's new aerial refueling tanker, which is based on the 767 commercial jet, long built in the Puget Sound area.

Among the procedural issues considered during Tuesday's hearings were document exchanges and motions. The NLRB and the union have both subpoenaed documents from Boeing, and Boeing has done the same from them. There have already been clashes and objections over subpoenas, and there are expected to be more over which documents will be entered into the docket.

About an hour into the hearing, lawyers for the parties recessed at the judge's suggestion to consider their respective document requests and try to resolve some of their difference over them. They returned briefly at 1 p.m. Pacific time, and the judge dismissed them again to continue as they had during the morning recess.