backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by pavel486.. on Feb 18 at 11:33 AM


2009 Dodge Challenger SRT-8

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz recently announced that Saturn probably won't survive, indicating that the company may soon cut the troubled brand. GM and Chrysler are working with the top economic minds from the Obama administration to come to an agreement on a turnaround plan, which will guarantee the company loans or a structured bankruptcy.
Obama is considering abandoning his plan of a car czar and transitioning the delicate matter into the hands of his top advisors

Amid a climate of economic despair, the U.S. federal government is faced with overseeing the troubled domestic auto companies.  The government approved $17.4B USD in loans for the troubled automakers, but now GM says that it needs more money or it will go bankrupt.  Furthermore, the government is struggling over what changes the automakers should be forced to adopt in order to qualify the loans.

The challenge is accentuated by the automakers' critical role in the American economy.  From the multitude of parts suppliers to software suppliers like Microsoft, many companies have money and jobs riding on the future of the U.S. domestic automotive industry.  The U.S. faces more pressure due to other countries' willingness to bail out their own auto makers or give them tax breaks and other special privileges.  For example, in Korea all foreign cars feature large tariffs, essentially forcing the vast majority of sales to be from domestic brands, while U.S. automakers enjoy no such privileges here at home.  Other countries like Japan make it difficult by limiting the amount of dealerships and repair centers for foreign vehicles.

Although the creation of a "Car Czar" to oversee the bailout was originally proposed, President Obama is now reportedly dropping that plan, and devoting his administration's top economic minds to the problem.

A special panel will now reportedly monitor the distribution of loans and try to work with the automakers to help them regain viability.  This panel will be led by the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers.  Ron Bloom, a restructuring expert who has advised the labor unions in the troubled steel and airline industries is also expected to be named a senior advisor to the panel, according to sources.  Mr. Bloom served as an “in-house” banker for the steel workers’ union, thus he brings valuable credibility to negotiations with both the UAW and the auto company's debtors.

The new panel will be called the Presidential Task Force on Autos.  Top officials from multiple agencies including the Treasury, labor, transportation, commerce, and energy departments will be tapped for positions.

President Obama is reportedly reserving the final decision about letting the automakers go bankrupt to himself.  Sources say he has not ruled out a controlled bankruptcy as a means of turning the automakers around.  David Axlerod, a key advisor, alluded to the possibility of bankruptcy on NBC's Meet the Press this weekend, stating, "We’re going to need a restructuring of these companies.  (Which would) require sacrifice not just from the auto workers but also from creditors, from shareholders and the executives who run the company."

President Obama's team is expected to mull over the automakers’ plans for a turnaround for a week or two before publicly announcing their decision.  In the meantime, talks between the automakers and UAW are reportedly continuing after UAW officials walked out on Friday.  Talks with shareholders are also ongoing.

Chrysler is currently asking for $3B USD more in addition to its $4B USD January loan.  It says that if it does not receive this money, it may go out of business.  General Motors meanwhile, is still receiving the $18B USD in aid it asked for in chunks, having received $9.4B USD, thus far.  It is set to receive another $4B USD soon if it meets the conditions set before it by Congress and the White House.

GM recently let loose another hint that it may soon drop its struggling Saturn brand as part of its turnaround plan.  Reminding everyone that he wasn't retired yet, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz commented in an interview with Automotive News that while he would love for Saturn to survive, "Frankly, the reality is that that is probably not going to be the outcome."

Saturn dealers responded to the comments with outrage.  They believe that GM has been planning to cut them off all along, but has just now let the news slip, after telling them otherwise.  GM had previously told Saturn dealers that it would continue delivering vehicles until 2012, though it announced no plans to deliver new models.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Was a Czar a good idea?
By Oregonian2 on 2/16/2009 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 1
Watching the news, it seems that the committee seems like a better idea rather than having just one guy to do the job.

The new committee includes one added guy (forget name) who was involved in the steel industry and it's problems in the past (for instance). Don't know who the others are.

There is the problem of committee vs Czar, but seems like a commitee may have more expertise in multiple related fields -- rather than having just one guy.




RE: Was a Czar a good idea?
By kamel5547 on 2/16/2009 5:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand decisions by committee (especially if seeking consensus) are slow and often less than ideal. Personally I'd just as soon have one guy as a committee when dealing with a very short time frame.


RE: Was a Czar a good idea?
By stilltrying on 2/16/2009 8:16:01 PM , Rating: 5
I guess dictatorships are fine with you then eh for a short while to solve cumbersome tasks without dealing with committees or Republics. Czar/Cesar. Enegy czar, education czar, security czar, etc... Many fools of history on DT. I am amazed at how many people have been programmed to think exactly how theyve been trained. Dictatorships in all of these fields will eventually be combined into a dictator for all fields.

The marxism/fabian rhetoric on this board whether communistic or fascistic is amazing.

Bailout is theft from future generations regardless of what it does or does not solve. Anyone for a bailout is morally bankrupt. Car bailouts will not work. IF YOU WANT TO BAIL THEM OUT GO BUY A CAR. Thats what i thought, you want to steal my money/future money for people that were paid very well (much better than I) when things were going right but could not keep things going well. I dont want a car and I should not have to buy a paper car nor should my kids.


RE: Was a Czar a good idea?
By dever on 2/17/2009 2:21:03 PM , Rating: 3
No kidding. These people are gambling away our liberty and we're not even invited to the casino. Some of you are worried about which cocktails are being served.


RE: Was a Czar a good idea?
By 16nm on 2/16/2009 6:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's never just "one guy." The decision-maker will have "experts" involved in his decision making. As kamel said, a committee would be cumbersome and a pain in the a--. (paraphrasing)


RE: Was a Czar a good idea?
By Athena on 2/16/2009 6:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Watching the news, it seems that the committee seems like a better idea rather than having just one guy to do the job.
A committee is probably better but I'm afraid that the auto industry is likely to be a low priority for a couple of people who think that everything should be sacrificed for "saving" the banks. I would be much more sanguine if neither Geithner nor Summers -- both of whom agreed with Paulson about giving money to the banks with no accountability -- had no role whatsoever in the this situation.


That's not an SRT-8.
By Mr Perfect on 2/17/2009 1:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Minor quibble, but that doesn't look like a SRT-8 in your photo. For starters, SRT-8s don't come in *shudder* white.




RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
It appears to be a photoshopped version of the original SRT-8 pic, which I believe to be here:

http://www.tuningnews.net/wallpaper/1024x768/dodge...


RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
unless they photo chopped down the cactus and added a darker tint its a different photo that was used in a previous article here. and its silver by the way which is a factory color and here is another photo of it here at edmunds.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009-dodge-c...


RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 2:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, both photos have the exact angle on the front wheel rim and the angle of the rear-view mirror shadow, the exact same smoke pattern around the rear wheel, the same exact bush behind the vehicle, and the same driver, complete with mustache, sunglasses, and same head angle. Also, the area around where the cactus was photoshopped out is suspiciously blurry.

You be the judge:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2009/def/2009-Do...


RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
there is definitely some photo chop going on but its not the cars, its the smoke and backgrounds.


RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 2:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
they do for 09, its officially called "stone white".


RE: That's not an SRT-8.
By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 2:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
well the RT's come in white. SRT comes in a bright silver.


Sheesh!!!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/16/2009 5:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This panel will be led by the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Timothy F. Geithner


Doesn't Geithner already have enough on his plate? Damn, talking about piling it on!!




RE: Sheesh!!!
By Lord 666 on 2/16/2009 5:04:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
President Obama is reportedly reserving the final decision about letting the automakers go bankrupt to himself.


Nothing like setting up a fall guy (Geithner) if Obama makes the wrong choice.


RE: Sheesh!!!
By phxfreddy on 2/16/2009 5:11:53 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and that should include a stint in a minimum security facility for tax evasion.

But then he is of the liberal overlord class that can say "whoops" and the IRS does not climb his colon in the retrograde direction.


I guessed I just overlooked it
By bigboxes on 2/17/2009 12:14:54 AM , Rating: 1
but how is this TECH RELATED??? Seriously. This one isn't even close.




By meepstone on 2/17/2009 7:44:05 AM , Rating: 3
im going to take a shot in the dark on this one.

Because its about car companys which produce cars which is a piece of technology.


Blind leading...
By djc208 on 2/17/2009 8:00:39 AM , Rating: 4
So the same Government that is ready to spend over $700 billion (on top of the existing $700 billion) in money that doesn't technically exist is supposed to be in charge of how GM and Chrysler become profitable?

Isn't that like getting Donald Trump to handle your personal finances? That man would be destitute if it weren't for Chapter 11.




By TSS on 2/16/2009 6:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=97898

"UK: West European car sales plunged 25.4% in January"

only reason we wheren't affected about it untill now is because this crisis started in the USA, so people in the USA stopped buying cars before europians did.

now that credit is becomming scarce here too because banks here have lost their investments in the USA banks, we'll have our slow down.


By A Stoner on 2/16/2009 6:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Um, our car companies are about to go BANKRUPT, as in no cash to continue business, without federal dollars to bail them out. Toyota, mazda and all the other car companies with the exception of American OWNED ones have enough money in the bank to weather the crisis. Ameircan companies cannot make money even when the economy is doing well. Big difference between sales going up and down and making money over the long term of the company.


By PrinceGaz on 2/16/2009 7:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
The US car manufacturing plants need to be updated, rather like the Nissan plant in Britain which whilst its workers are entitled to union protection, is extremely efficient thanks to modern production methods.

A union is a good thing when it ensures the company is able to accquire the best quality employees (who expect the protection of their rights). They have also laid-off about 20% of the work-force recently because of a down-turn in car-sales, but that has been managed with the union such that it is mainly voluntary-redundancies and short-term contract staff. Similar policies apply in other companies, so I can't understand why the contract-workers at the BMW Mini plant in Britain are protesting about being laid-off when the company is shifting from a 7-day to a 5-day operating-week, as they must have known they would be first against the wall when the revolution came.

Unions are good in the right place-- they provide workers of all levels (from shop-floor to mid-management, including IT workers at every level) with something to fall back-on if they are treated unfairly.

As for the US car industry, it is clear GM is a lost cause. Nedding x billion dollars just to continue for the next quarter implies they will almost certainly need another x billion for the following quarter, and so on. If GM cannot compete with other car manufacturers, it is better they disappear now, so the more competitive ones make more sales and have a better chance of survival on their own merit.

Natural Selection is all about survival of the fittest (most adaptable to change). Those US car companies who haven't responded to change will just have die off so the others who built more efficient factories and designed more desirable cars survive. It's worked in nature ever since life started and resulted in ever better creatures, and in the motor-industry will result in ever more efficient car manufacturing plants.


By Cypherdude1 on 2/18/2009 1:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
If Korea imposes tariffs on USA auto products, then it's not "free trade." We need to do the same thing on all of Korea's products , whether it be their crappy Kia, Hyundai, or any of their electronics products. The same thing goes for China and Japan. If they impose barriers to our products, then we must do the same to them.

The reason why our government, which only represents the rich, hasn't done anything is because they're so freakin' corrupt.

If our government leaders actually represented us, they would've fixed this years ago. Our government leaders need to develop a backbone. If they presented an ultimatum to Korea, China, Japan, and any other country doing these practices, they would back down and change their policies within weeks, if not days!


By TSS on 2/16/2009 7:42:31 PM , Rating: 5
while i will concede that GM and chrysler executives are idiots, you are forgetting about... ford.

Ford has burned through $6.3B in cash in Q3, $5.9B in cash in Q4 (while Q4 was worse then Q3) and still has $13,4B cash on hand.

the french recently bailed out their carmakers, as to avoid layoffs.

the germans did exactly the same.

why bail them out if their in such great shape?

toyota had a profit of $25 billion last fiscal year, their expecting a $1.7 billion loss this fiscal year. 27 billions down the tube.

mazda is expecting to lose around 13 billion yen for the 2008 fiscal year.

nissan is also expecting to post a loss for the first time since 1999.

regardless if they had enough cash on hand or not to weather the storm, NO ONE EXPECTED IT. GM just was in a bad position for the crisis to hit when it did, as it posted a record loss the year before. as to why, i'm not so sure.

my stance on the whole matter is that GM and chrysler should be allowed to fail. GM because it was already a lost cause when the crisis hit, and chrysler because... well... their sales went down 50% while the rest of the market's around 30-35%. that does tell ya something.

ford, on the other hand, is relatively doing well, and should thus be supported. their pickup truck has been the best sold for years and years on end, you cannot blame them for beeing not innovative if the public *wants* their trucks.

seems to me people seem to forget stuff rather quickly these days.


By Mathos on 2/17/2009 1:45:50 AM , Rating: 1
Well, considering the fact that Chrysler was doing well before Diemlar(sp?) bought the management that should tell you something. Ford Yes has good products.. There trucks are nice. But they aren't the best on the road. Dodge's Rams Durango's are still very popular when it comes to competing with Fords trucks. I can see that just by watching the numbers of said vehicles on the roads. The biggest problem with Chrysler, which is what caused their sales to drop so severely is that under the german companies leadership they stopped selling their mass market model vehicles for the most part. Dodge spirit/Plymouth Acclaim used to be good economy sedans, but, they were phased out after they were bought out. They were fairly safe vehicles as well, know that from my own personal experience with one of the very few accidents I've been in. And I still remember the old 88 Chrysler New Yorker my grandmother had, and the 89 Le baron that a friend of mine had...... Both of em were the turbo charged models.

Here's the problem though. What happens if both these companies fail and go out of business??? Let's see, all previous contracts between them and former employee's are null and void. Ok, what kind of problem does this cause?? Suddenly several million people who've put in there 30+ years working for these companies lose there pensions and medical insurance.. This ends up cascading down hill, now all these people need to apply for social security, and medicare or lose everything they've ever worked for... And even then they still risk losing everything due to the small amount you get from social security. Or those who can still work, cause a massive influx of people needing jobs, in a market that's already scarce. Do any of you have family that are GM/Chrysler/Ford Retiree's??? I know I do, my step father put in 30 years at AC Delco/Delphi. My Grandfather, put in 35 years at Buick, in Michigan, in fact he was one of the people that set up the UAW branch there.

I don't think the people who put in their time should have to be the ones that ultimately pay for the stupidity of the upper management of these companies. And thats what happens if they go bankrupt or fail.


By TSS on 2/17/2009 3:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
having your pension paid for by the company you no longer work at is madness! logic already tells you that the company is much more likely to go under the longer it exists.

i'd much rather recieve a slightly higher pay and put all the money in a savings account myself.

here's how i view work: you provide a service for the company, the company pays you for that service with a paycheck. you stop providing services, they stop paying you. simple logic.

GM's problems stem from the fact that this is not the case at GM.

i'm sorry but if ANYBODY got into any position that they could still lose all they worked for after retiring their complete and utter idiots. you don't work 35 years to have it all taken away after that! *YOU* make sure that doesn't happen to *YOU*.

Responsibility people. this goes for every individual. that upper management doesn't know theirs doesn't mean you can go about not knowing yours.

i'd like to add that maybe another great depression is just what this generation needs. we do not know hardship like our grandparents did. maybe it's time for a reality check.


By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Suddenly several million people who've put in there 30+ years working for these companies lose there pensions and medical insurance.. This ends up cascading down hill, now all these people need to apply for social security, and medicare or lose everything they've ever worked for... And even then they still risk losing everything due to the small amount you get from social security.

They already get Social Security. You do not lose any Social Security benifits because you have a retirement account.

And just to make a point, the people who put 30 years in, raping the company of any hope of making a profit have gotten their just rewards. When you demand too much from a finite source, it eventually goes belly up and produces nothing. You over fish and complain there are no fish, tough, suck it up. You overlog and complain there is no forest to cut down, tough, suck it up. You created the problem, you deal with, and if that means you lose everything because of your previous greed, I DO NOT CARE. I could care less about your craptastic grandfather who helped make this mess by founding the UAW branch. I hope he loses everything like everyone else who helped make this mess.


By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
The 25 billion profit for last year is not wiped out because they lost 1.7 this year. It means they still have 23.3 billion in the bank to ride out the slow season of sales.


By FITCamaro on 2/16/2009 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 5
Apparently you missed the part about how in other countries, they have tariffs on foreign cars. Encouraging domestic buying. We don't have that in the USA. Which puts our automakers at a great disadvantage.


By Athena on 2/16/2009 6:46:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apparently you missed the part about how in other countries, they have tariffs on foreign cars.
Ford and GM are not subject to tariffs in the EU or other countries, they have plants all over the world. It's not tariffs that put US automakers at a disadvantage, it's that manufacturers in other countries don't shoulder the costs of healthcare and pensions. Japan and German have national healthcare.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
Odd that not only do Ford and GM show huge profits in their overseas operations, but Toyota, Honda, and other non-UAW automakers manage to show profits on their operations here in the US.

The problem isn't just "healthcare and pensions", its the ridiculous contracts the UAW has demanded from the Big 3.


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 9:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
we'll find out on March 31 from what I hear. Delphi is going Bankrupt and has lawsuits in progress which will take out a large portion of UAW involvement with future GM cashflow. GM will then take over the manufacturing plants in the same way Ford has done by making Delphi a wholly owned subsidiary and closing a number of plants.

What Chrysler is doing is beyond me. I have a feeling its going down at the benefit of Ford/GM.


By retrospooty on 2/16/2009 7:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
YA, that and the crappy cars they produces for the past 30+ years ;)


By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 3
You produce crappy cars when the workers you have to work with take more of the money that could go into research and developement and higher quality parts and materials. If you can only sell a car for $20,000 and your compitions labor for making the same value car is $3500 less, they get to put $3500 more into parts or research and developement or into profits.


By retrospooty on 2/17/2009 2:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
That might be part of the cause... But whatever. Crap=Crap regardless of the cause.


By pavel486 on 2/16/2009 7:40:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
For example, in Japan all foreign cars feature LARGE tariffs


Korea's automobile tariff is 8 percent, which is much higher than the 2.5 percent in the United States and 0 percent in Japan.
Barbara Weisel, deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for bilateral Asian affairs,

Japan have no tariffs for US cars.


By TSS on 2/17/2009 1:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
just a small comment aside of the rating system:

i find it amusing that somebody saying there *are* tariffs, and somebody saying there *aren't* tariffs, both have a rating of 5.

so which is it? no/yes tariffs? a little or a lot?


By Atheist Icon on 2/17/2009 2:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Japan have no tariffs for US cars.


I hope to your God you are right. I am still trying to figure out why an 09 Mustang costs 39K in Japan. Or a GT convertible costs 53K.

Just in case you do not believe it.
http://www.ford.co.jp/servlet/ContentServer?cid=11...


By pavel486 on 2/17/2009 6:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's a little more complicated. Dealers in Japan can't sell a lot of US cars because... of the large engines. In Japan owner pay road taxes based on engine CC. And for 4000 cc tax is astronomical. As a result -> low demand -> low volume -> higher price.
Most of the cars in Japan 1299 cc or less :)


By Atheist Icon on 2/18/2009 12:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
I know, I grew up on Okinawa. I remember the 300 series plates. So, this in a sense is not "tariff", just a deterrent from buying any thing other than their domestics. If this is not correct, explain to me how a prius is the same price in Japan as it is here in the states.


By pavel486 on 2/18/2009 11:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
Prius is not a cheap car by Japanese standard. At least original Prius had 1.299 liter engine and I bet it's same now (in Japan).

I don't know exact numbers for Japan but in Moscow for example for 2010 Ford Mustang road tax will be $1375 a year. For some it's just pocket change but Ford don't expect to sell a lot of this puppies in Moscow :)

In some states like CA your registration calculated as %% of the new car price. Nobody call it "Tariff" or even "deterrent"


By TSS on 2/16/2009 8:11:23 PM , Rating: 4
then put tariffs on them! quick!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_A...

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.

In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.

In the opinion of some economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompanied the start of the Great Depression."

didn't the stimulus package that'll be signed into law tomorrow have some sort of "buy american" provision?


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 8:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
what it should have contained is an equal trade/equal tariff act. Getting a little old loosing 500 billion a year.


By TSS on 2/16/2009 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
actually....

TARP was $700B, the stimulus is $789B, so that would amount to almost 1.5 trillion. fiscal '09 ends in march, so be on the lookout for the new US budget around that time.

it's going to be killer! the largest deficit in history, i'll bet. i can't wait to see the reactions worldwide ^^


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 8:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
wont matter much. every other nation is doing the same. wonder if we can do a worldwide write off for 2009 lol.

heres to a normal 2010!!!


By TSS on 2/17/2009 3:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
actually our dutch version of TARP had strict conditions applied to them, and our prime minister and treasury commited the profits of each to paying off our national debt. which was only fair because the bailout forced our previous budget surplus into a deficit.

in my oppinion, america's headed for a lost decade like japan. i'd expect recovery to start again slowly around the end of 2014.

and yes it will get alot worse then it is now before it's over.


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 10:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
and in my opinion the dutch will use their funds to buy drugs and chocolate. aren't opinion wonderful.


By mmatis on 2/16/2009 10:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
There won't be no steenkin' reaction. After all, Osama is president. He can do no wrong!

Filthy maggot pig swill.


By ice456789 on 2/16/2009 8:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't the teacher talk about the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act in Ferris Bueller?

"It was called the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone? It did not work, and the US fell even further into the depression".

And people say TV doesn't teach you anything.


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 7:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we hire the people that RUN Toyota, Mazda, Mitsubishi and BMW and AUDI and all the other foreign companies to help make these decisions? These companies do not seem to have the problems that American companies have.

Say what? Haven't been paying much attention to the market obviously.

I know it isn't prevalent to point out Toyota is in as much trouble as the Big 3 and everyone else. They posted a 4 billion loss for the year which all came in the 4th quarter of 2008. Almost guaranteed to post a loss every quarter this year and throughout the rest of the recession just like every other car manufacturer. They are all in trouble, wake up.


By retrospooty on 2/16/2009 7:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
A 4 billion dollar loss to Toyota isnt the same and GM needing 20 billion dollars to avoid going out of business.

Toyota and "other" car companies. can take it and wont be needing any bailouts. GM Ford and Chrysler are mismanaged and often lose money even in the best of economies.


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 7:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
of course it is. Toyota was on track for a profitable year and at worst break even. A complete reversal to -4 billion in one quarter is a huge change. Some of those other car companies are already in talks with their perspective governments for future bailouts. Try reading something other than the usual tainted one-sided news orgs.

On the other hand Toyota can fire employees nearly immediately to turn the tide but that ends up hurting the US economy more due to the unemployment drain on the government. Of course GM/Ford/Chrysler can't do this without going bankrupt first.

As another poster pointed out the tariffs on US autos are often lopsided. Its about time we pass a law to eliminate those tariffs that artificially limit US auto in foreign countries. If they don't like it then they stop buying at the cost of being banned in the US. That should boost US auto companies very quickly.


By LordanSS on 2/16/2009 8:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps if the US would stop putting tariffs on other countries' products they would be willing to drop their import taxes on american items.

If you think others are hurting your economy, there are several out there claiming that you are hurting theirs. Free trade is good when only others have to do it, right?


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 8:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. we run a 300 billion deficit with china, nearly 200 billion with Europe.

Equaling the tariffs would benefit the US more. Which hole are you speaking out of?


By LordanSS on 2/16/2009 8:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Neither of the two you mentioned. Pretty much everything produced here in South America faces heavy taxation from the US (and many other countries too, Europe doesn't fall behind at all).

Heavy taxes on ethanol, soy, hell even orange juice. I think the only one with an easier time is that wacko Chavez, sitting in a mountain of oil. Everyone else though, have to face stiff protective measures against most of their exported products.

In the end though, both sides lose.


By SandmanWN on 2/16/2009 9:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but we don't need food crops! thats why you get high tariffs. we make plenty of food and actually pay our farmers to not farm. theres no point in running a high deficit with South America for something we don't need. Especially with some of the most corrupt governments on the face of the planet that are intertwined with drug cartels. If South America wants to avoid tariffs they have to deal in something we don't already have.

Chavez is a lost cause on borrowed time. The entire globe is on a swing to rid themselves of oil. His country is hurting and looking for help from the very companies that ran the oil fields he just booted out.


By BikeDude on 2/17/2009 5:15:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Especially with some of the most corrupt governments on the face of the planet that are intertwined with drug cartels.


That is a pretty bold statement to make, considering the way the US have systematically sabotaged democratically elected governments in many South American countries.

USA is directly responsible for putting those drug cartels into the position they have now. Sure you spend some resources on fighting them from time to time now, but...


By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:08:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
considering the way the US have systematically sabotaged democratically elected governments in many South American countries
Methinks you've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies.


By slunkius on 2/17/2009 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The entire globe is on a swing to rid themselves of oil


In your pipe dreams. When recession is over, let me know how far US got ridding itself of oil :)


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimuspg1m...

the pipe dream looks pretty clear to me. Middle East imports are down to late 90's numbers. Overall the trend is reversing to 03' numbers. After this summer and the inevitable price gouging from the middle east and increasing cafe standards that are coming there is little to no choice at this point. Oil will be on the downswing for the foreseeable future. OPEC burned themselves badly last year.


By retrospooty on 2/16/2009 10:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
"of course it is. Toyota was on track for a profitable year and at worst break even. A complete reversal to -4 billion in one quarter is a huge change."

Bah... your smoking crack.

How is that is any way comparable. Of course Toyota, and all car makers are having a tough time. Its a worldwide recession. They are not ALL going out of business without a bailout. Its just just "a difference" its a HUGE difference - try night and day.


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 7:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
ok, how much was Toyota expected to make last year? 20-25 billion. and ended up where? yep, 4 billion in the whole, not too far off from Ford's Q4. thats a 29 billion swing, almost equal to everything they have in the bank now. With wording of protectionism in some of these bills the reality of a foreign automaker taking a nose dive shouldn't be that hard to imagine.


By retrospooty on 2/17/2009 8:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
"ok, how much was Toyota expected to make last year? 20-25 billion. and ended up where? yep, 4 billion in the whole, not too far off from Ford's Q4. thats a 29 billion swing"

OK, I am gonna spell out why this is totally different, really clearly for you. - It has nothing to do with lowered profit expectations, regardless of how much they dropped.

Its a pretty heavy recession, and all car makers are hurting. Most car makers like Toyota have billions and billions on the books and can easily weather several years of loss. Why? Because when the economy is good, they make money - keeping some and re-investing some. Now the big 3, are so totally mismanaged every step of the way that they often operate at a loss, even in the best of times. When a recession hits, they cant weather it. They dont put enough money into designing decent cars, and havent for more than 3 decades.

Now, enter the recession:
Toyota, Honda and many others are losing money and will tighten their belts to weather the storm... and they will survive.

The big 3 will close their doors and go out of business unless the govt. gives them billions in bailout money.

Explain to me how that is the same??? And please dont post again about how much Toyota expected to make, vs. thier revised #'s because its irrelevant and my previous 3 paragraphs explain why.


By DigitalFreak on 2/17/2009 10:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
Nice. That shut him up.


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 3
I found it hopeless. What he hasn't realized yet is the recession is spreading outward around the US. While the US manufacturers, Ford for example, have already seen the worst and are reducing the losses as is evident in their Q3-Q4 numbers in an upward trend Toyota, Honda, and others are just now feeling the full brunt and are still on the downswing. Care to wager on whether that total -4 billion for 2008 will be larger or smaller in Q1 09? We still don't know where some of these manufacturers will bottom out just yet because the recession in their countries are still forming. Compared to US and European manufacturers seeing 20-25% drops the asian manufacturers are experiencing 30% and greater drops at the moment.

The unions however are about to make their presence known and you can already see that in Michigan. When it comes down to it, protectionism will rear its head as its already doing in TARP2 and on the streets of Detroit. The shear amount of job losses will demand it and the liberal controlled government doesn't really have any choice but to submit to their constituents that put them in power in these major cities where the unions exist. The longer this continues the more of an inward retraction will take place and put a major hamper on foreign auto and other products in general, whether you like it or not.


By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 11:35:30 AM , Rating: 1
Difference is they have a huge savings account in order to survive the recession because they were making billions in profits for the last 10 years. What the hell is wrong with you fucking rejects that have no clue about how money works? I lost $5000 this month, I must be going bankrupt!!!! oh wait, I have 35,000 in the bank, which means that if I lose $5000 for 7 months I might be in bankrupt. Toyota has cash in the bank, like Ford does, but Toyota has MUCH more than Ford and is losing much less per quarter than Ford. GM is actually broke, no money in the bank at all, one more losing quarter and it is bankrupt without help. Big diference.


By SandmanWN on 2/17/2009 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
you really need to weigh the other markets that Toyota operates. They lost over 54% last year of operating income in their own country on top of about 30% between US and EU. Toyota executives themselves say, just at the end of January, that they haven't hit bottom yet in the US. We will find out at the end of Q1 what the real bottom is for Toyota. On the flip side the US manufacturers were hitting bottom at the end of Q3 08 and were already reversing those numbers by the end Q4. The losses are getting smaller in Q1 for US manufacturers. Comparing foreign versus domestic isn't apples to apples at the moment.


By Natfly on 2/16/2009 10:35:19 PM , Rating: 3
There are a bunch of reasons why these foreign companies are faring better than US car companies.

1.) Labor cost. Labor unions are constantly driving up the hourly wage and benefits that unskilled laborers are being paid. The "Big 3" labor costs are significantly higher than foreign car companies, even ones with plants in the US.

2.) Perceived image. Through the 80s and 90s American cars gained reputations for being inefficient gas guzzlers, for good reason. Now though, American made cars are on par with the best of foreign cars. American cars are winning awards on all fronts from independent reviewers.

3.) Foreign car companies receive aid from their governments. Toyota and Honda both receive government funds.

An interesting thing is that *foreign* cars aren't necessarily foreign, and domestic cars aren't necessarily domestic. Mercedez has has factories in Mexico, Toyota and BMW have factories in the US, Ford has factories in Portugal, Mexico, and Australia.


By Nfarce on 2/16/2009 10:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1.) Labor cost. Labor unions are constantly driving up the hourly wage and benefits that unskilled laborers are being paid. The "Big 3" labor costs are significantly higher than foreign car companies, even ones with plants in the US.


Bingo. And in 2006, even CNN reported the writing was on the wall with UAW buyout offers:

The top pay for a GM hourly employee is $27 an hour, but with benefits and future health care costs GM estimates that hour of work costs the company $73.73. The flat wage works out to about $56,000 a year before overtime, so those taking a $140,000 buyout would get about 2-1/2 years of pay in the lump sum.

Not bad at all for bolting on four tires or seats if you ask me.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/22/news/companies/gm_...


By Nfarce on 2/16/2009 11:00:06 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, and that doesn't include 1 out of 4 UAW workers who aren't actually on the assembly line because of concessions yet still getting pay as if they were on the assembly line; now someone please 'splain to me how a company is supposed to make money with those concessions?

Something you won't see CNN or MSNBC report:

DETROIT (AP) A person briefed on the negotiations says the United Auto Workers and General Motors Corp. will resume bargaining over concessions Sunday afternoon. The person did not want to be identified because the talks are private. The UAW walked out of the talks on Friday night in a dispute over payments into a trust fund that will handle retiree health care expenses starting next year.

http://www.kxmb.com/News/332908.asp


Run for the Hills!
By Chemical Chris on 2/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Run for the Hills!
By A Stoner on 2/16/2009 6:47:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
PS my ideal govenrment includes as little a role as possible in a persons daily life, but high taxation and lots of social services. You can still become a bigshot, but the people on the bottom will be able to feed their kids, and get medicine if they're dying.


My ideal car would be a 500 feet long, 400 feet wide, 200 stories tall with an engine the size of a quarter that could go a billion miles an hour, accelerate at 10 million miles per second per second, turn on an electron and run on nothing more than Barack Obama's farts. None of these things goes together, just like none of your ideal government makes any sense when put in the same framework.

My ideal of a perfect government would be one where the Federal level of government did what it was supposed to do according to the constituion, things like Armed Forces, Standardizing Interstate Infrastructures and pretty much kept to itself. A state government that stayed inside it's constitutional boundries, a county government the same and so forth. Instead we get people like you who thing the government can be all things to all people getting into politics and then start controlling peoples lives.

quote:
PS my ideal govenrment includes as little a role as possible in a persons daily life, but high taxation and lots of social services.

Little role, except craddle to grave care, whick is a role, and that role pretty much means it will be in every crook and crany of your life. Are you eating too much candy? That will lead to being fat and cost us too much money to care for you. No smoking, no drugs, no tv, no games, no sports, you might get hurt... So now that we have determined you can have no fun, that means all you can do is either sit around being bored or get a job, if you get a job, expect to pay for three other lazy good for nothings to sit at home being bored on the couch, because if the government gaurantees you food, a home, clothes and medicine what is the incentive to work? NONE, I sure as hell would stay at home playing games if I did not have to work, maybe travel the world if I could con the government into taking YOUR money and paying for it.

quote:
You can still become a bigshot, but the people on the bottom will be able to feed their kids, and get medicine if they're dying.


I guess we pretty much already got that. No one in America goes hungry unless the parents are neglectful or by choice of the individual not to go to a shelter or food line, or to get a damn job for what ever reason. People who cannot work get government assistance, and the POOR in America are the equivelent of KINGS of the 1700's as far as having their needs met and having leftovers for luxuries. You can go to any hospital and emergency care is given, for free to you, but the cost is passed on to everyone else, all you have to do is tell them, "Habla espaniol?", no papers, no ID, no pesos. The thing you cannot have is people who can become a bigshot when taxes are too high, because the more successful you are the more the government takes, and for what you want to give to everyone, that means everything a worker makes MUST go to the government to be handed out to people who refuse to work.

quote:
But make one comment on public healthcare, or higher taxation on the rich/less tax on the poor, better education, or anything like that, and immediately you are accused of SOCIALISM!!


Thats because it is SOCIALISM reject. From each his ability to each their need. The basis for socialism.

Sounds all great and wonderful right up until you are the person being forced to pay for socialism. The truth is that not one rich person who currently supports socialism in words would ever support it once the government came to them and took their ABILITY and gave it to the NEEDY, because then they would be the same as the needy, dependent on government. The truth is that all the people who support this ideal are the people who are expecting to profit from it or are completely ignorant of what it really means. They expect that they will be top dogs in such a scenario with the power to DICTATE to the masses what is good for them, and to TAKE from the masses what they DICTATE so they can do with it as they please, of course always with the false ideal that it is to help the needy. Once the government starts to tell it's people they can have without doing the work, guess what? people stop working, at least as hard. If I get fired, so what, I still get all my needs met and I can spend time with my family, playing games, travelling the world or what ever it is other than working. Then the government has to step in and DICTATE to people what they must do to get these FREE things from the government that was taken from the rich. This can work for a time, until the money that the rich had is all spent, and the government does not have any more rich people to steal from. Once that happens the government cannot provide for it's people and the 1990's soviet union collapse happens. The reason the soviet union collapsed is because in order to keep the masses happy, the government had to either scare the hell out of them KGB style, or meet their needs with dwindling resources, because workers had no incentive to be productive there was ever less resources to meet the needs of an ever increasing population that was entitiled to ever more. Thus it became alot of vodka and alot of the gulag to keep the people in line.

By the way reject, maybe you could explain to me how much lower than, you get a tax refund even though you paid no taxes we should tax the poor?

I already know they may pay payroll taxes, but that is to pay for a future benifit called social security and medicaid. It is not INCOME tax, which is what they get the refund for. Thus refunding them the money they pay for Social Security and Medicaid would turn those programs into the pure form of, you guessed it, SOCIALISM.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Athena on 2/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Run for the Hills!
By stilltrying on 2/16/2009 8:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
General welfare by what stealing? LOL. You think the founding fathers promoted stealing to provide for others? Welfare - the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well being, or prosperity: hence fare well. Nowhere out out of the dictionary does it say what you say. go to merriam websters and look it up, MAIN ENTRY #1, as in that time their was no such thing as the welfare office. Come out of the closet now you have given yourself away.

Read: The Declaration of Independence and you will understand what they thought of your welfare state.

"he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance"

"for imposing taxes on us without our consent"


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Nfarce on 2/16/2009 8:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
People who want socialism in this nation (or one of its variants, fascism - government control over private business) probably do not understand the Constitution in general.

In the Constitutional context of "Promote the general welfare ", "welfare" is used for states and not individuals just as Amendment X of the Bill Of Rights relinquishes all absolvent protection of rights to the States that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. There is a crucial difference there of context.

The "welfare of the United States" is not in cohesion with the welfare of citizens, nor was it meant to be in the visionary principles of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, some in this nation tend to want to lump and interpret said meanings and phrases in the Constitution like someone who wants to interpret his or her variation of what the Bible says in his or her own way for an agenda.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By RandallMoore on 2/16/2009 8:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
some in this nation tend to want to lump and interpret said meanings and phrases in the Constitution like someone who wants to interpret his or her variation of what the Bible says in his or her own way for an agenda.


You know,... I was just writing my response to that when I saw that you already beat me to it. Anyone can reply to this with any kind of statement that they wish, but the fact will remain that our founding fathers wrote the rules of this country based on solid irrefutable principals in the Bible. It's sinful men full of lust that have helped to push the gradual degrade of this country.

Gone are the days that we TEACH men to fish, instead of just giving them a fish.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Radnor on 2/17/2009 5:01:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
People who want socialism in this nation (or one of its variants, fascism - government control over private business) probably do not understand the Constitution in general.


If you mistake socialism with fascism, you should not post here talking like that. Next thing you gonna call someone a anarchic communist to silly up the thing.

I see UAW getting bashed in this forums every time a "Auto Bailout" article comes. In Europe, people and companies pay for much more taxes than the US. Loads of it are for welfare. PSA and SIVA groups haven't asked for a bailout.

Your rage shouldn't be turned to the worker, he is rarely the root of the problem. Maybe Bob Lutz should have retired long ago. Usually in this cases there are other problems like, Influences trafficking, Mismanagement, and other far worse.

You got point the fingers to the head of the bunch. And by the way if you don't like welfare or any form of it, good or you. In Europe is working pretty well.

As for the American auto makers i couldn't care less. America already did their best autos. And there is a long and beautiful list of them. New ones just suck (although Dodge has some nice models).


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:12:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you mistake socialism with fascism, you should not post here talking like that. Next thing you gonna call someone a anarchic communist to silly up the thing
Err, I've met several anarcho-communists. It's actually a valid political philosophy...valid in the sense it exists at least, not that it's actually viable in practice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

quote:
I see UAW getting bashed in this forums every time a "Auto Bailout"
With good reason. The cost structure and, more importantly, the inefficient work environment the UAW demands is one of the primary reasons domestic automakers are failing. Ford and GM are actually hugely profitable on their overseas operations...their UAW-staffed plants, though, lose them billions each year.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Nfarce on 2/17/2009 8:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you mistake socialism with fascism, you should not post here talking like that.


If you go back and re-read my post, you'll see I did NO such thing. In fact, I clearly stated that fascism was a FORM of socialism.

As for the rest of your rant, go read a book or two. You clearly are not cut for deep and intellectual thought. Ignorance can be excused and fixed with knowledge.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The purpose of the federal government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare...
If you notice, the Constitution also includes the phrase "insure domestic tranquility", but that doesn't imply we should do so with a massive force of secret police and capital punishment for trivial offenses.

The government is meant to promote general welfare -- not guarantee free rides. Maintaining a stable, fair system of laws and government does just that. Socialism does not. If you doubt that, I suggest you check out the booming economies of Cuba, North Korea, or a former Soviet Republic.

The US didn't become richest, most powerful nation on Earth by giving every citizen a free ride from birth to death. Nor should it do so, not when it means condemning the productive in society to a lifetime of slavery, toiling to pay the debts of others.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Starcub on 2/17/2009 1:24:13 PM , Rating: 1
Secret police and harsh punnishment for minor violations of law are the tools of tyrants. It could happen just as easily in the US. What you're talking about has nothing to do with systems of government.

The US became the most powerful nation on earth because it was less corrupt and smarter than it's competition. However, that is most likely going to change given the state of the nation and it's enthralment to the culture of death.

Personally, I think people who slave away at two jobs just to get by while their corporate owners rake in the profits are weak; they probably deserve their state.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secret police and harsh punnishment for minor violations of law are the tools of tyrants. It could happen just as easily in the US.


It can't just as easily happen because the power in this country ultimately rests with the people, not with the government. Our destiny is in our own hands; we can assuredly screw up and give our freedom away, but no one can take our freedom from us.

quote:
The US became the most powerful nation on earth because it was less corrupt and smarter than it's competition.


Do you suppose a free market economic system or a socialist system is more conducive to working harder and smarter? Do you suppose socialist systems have any less corruption than free market systems?

Of course, in either case, I suspect a large part of our rise to power had to do with the fact that the other major powers of the world got their industrial sectors bombed back into the stone age during WWII, while the US was relatively unscathed.

quote:
Personally, I think people who slave away at two jobs just to get by while their corporate owners rake in the profits are weak; they probably deserve their state.


Depends. If you have the resources and ability to better yourself and your lot in life but choose not to, I have no pity for you. If the resources are not there or you do not have the ability, I'm considerably more charitable.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 2:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suspect a large part of our rise to power had to do with the fact that the other major powers of the world got their industrial sectors bombed back into the stone age during WWII, while the US was relatively unscathed.
Not really. Germany and especially France lost huge amounts of industrial capacity, but nations like the U.K. Scandinavia, and most of Latin America actually saw large increases in GDP over the course of WW2, and even the USSR saw only a very small decline.

The real factor was US growth, not losses in other nations. US GDP doubled from 1937-1946, and even in the late 1940s-early 1950s, was expanding at a rate of 15-25% per year.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 2:56:08 PM , Rating: 1
Lets put it this way: of all the parties involved in WWII, only the USA wasn't in need of some serious rebuilding at the end. That meant all that industrial capacity could be put to use meeting world demand for various and sundry products.

Conversely, while the USSR may not have seen a serious drop in GDP, their scorched earth policy assured they would have other things to do with their industrial capacity besides building cars.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 10:38:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
According to the preamble, The purpose of the federal government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".


Welfare is not government subsidies to good for nothings, it is the the general health of the economy and the United States in general. Go a little further and it says secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I would guess that taking 50% or more of a person's earnings would not really go along with securing the blessings of liberty. I also do not think handing out cash to good for nothings has any good ending for our posterity.

The fact is though that this is a preamble that justifies the enumerated specific powers of the state to which not one single power exists for the state to be Robinhood, stealing from the haves and giving to have nots. That is where libtards go to justify their socialistic tendencies, the preamble which has no power. You can justify the government recreating Nazi Germany in America by going by the quote you took. Germany established near perfect Justice, it was not without prejudice, but it was Justice for the people it empowered. Germany had a nearly perfectly Tranquil population, it was through pure evil subjugation that it got there, but it had it. Germany promoted perfectly for the welfare, of those it chose. It also gave perfect freedom to, once again, those it chose, to do what they wished. It also used all the power it stole from it's people to promote the posterity of Germany by starting World War II and attempting to create the Third Reicht which would rule the world for a thousand years, now if that is not something for posterity, I do not know what is. Thus, those words are meaningless until you actually get down to the meat of the meaning behind them, which are the enumerated powers of the state by which they are ALLOWED by the people and GRANTED by the people to do FOR the people, and the people include the rich.

I personally think that people should be granted a number of votes dependent upon their contribution to the welfare of the nation. Thus every good for nothing loser that does not want to work and pay taxes has exactly 0 votes, as where the hard working person doing two jobs and getting overtime at one will get several. That way, people who actually earn the money and build the country can decide what is in the best interest of the nation, as opposed to those who just want the government cheese so they can sit on the sofa doing nothing.

You should actually try and find some books that help you build what is called critical thinking skills. Maybe then you would not be so easily transformed into a zombie for the libtards.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Noya on 2/17/2009 4:40:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can go to any hospital and emergency care is given, for free to you


That's exactly the point.

You can go to an EMERGENCY room that basically treats you like a soldier in triage on a battlefield, but instead of passing out morphine or some other painkiller, they charge you $5 per Aspirin that does nothing but kill your liver. That's on top of the $850 ambulance ride and $200 bill for a Physicians Assistant (not even a PH.D) to look at you for 45 seconds. Don't even think about an MRI or any other "costly" test, even if it can help your diagnosis or treatment.

But what do you expect from a government that has the CIA bringing in tons of white powder...


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
Disinformation much? If you visit the emergency room in severe pain, you'll indeed be given an opiate. Passing out strong painkillers when unneeded, though, is a bad idea, not only for health reasons, but to control abuse. If the emergency room gave out free morphine for trifling afflictions, you'd have addicts showing up in droves just for the candy.

As for the extraordinarily high costs of emergency room service, most of that is due to the fact the majority of recipients pay nothing, due to government mandates that require service regardless of ability to pay.

I won't dignify the "kill your liver" comment. Pretty much anything can potentially cause organ damage in large enough doses, even too much oxygen. That doesn't mean that the occasional aspirin is unsafe.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 11:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but instead of passing out morphine or some other painkiller, they charge you $5 per Aspirin that does nothing but kill your liver.

Want to know the dirty little secret behind this? It is not $, morphine is almost as cheap to produce as aspirin. The problem is that the government, the same people you want determining everyone's medical treatments has decided that morphine needs to be a controlled substance. That means serial numbers, tracking, auditing, and tons of other red tape just so they can have it in stock. Not to mention the auditing of actual usage, the special licensing for prescribers, the fact that it can only come from a pharmacy that has a pharmacist with 12 years of medical training as well as lots of chemistry classes. Add that all up, and the end result is that the government, not the hospital has reduced your options for treating pain.

So go ahead and think that some fucking bean counter in Washington has your best health in his interest and let them be the ones determining your medical choices, 300,000,000 Americans times 2.25 for morphine as opposed to 300,000,000 Americans times .05 for aspirin. For me, I prefer to be the person making these choices for myself .05 for a non working solution of aspirin, or 2.25 for a working dose of vicoden.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By teckytech9 on 2/17/2009 12:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the bean counter sits in an HMO or another insurance agency and calls the shots. The more care and insurance coverage that is denied, the more profitable they become.

Thus, the so called "free capitalistic for profit medicine" we have in this country is having a large burden on companies like GM and taxpayers alike. To a point that business and personal bankruptcies due to the health care system is increasing in magnitude.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 1:10:39 PM , Rating: 3
FWIW, the USA does not have anything resembling a free market in its healthcare industry.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2009 8:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect if one looked hard enough, you could find some genuine opposition to all of the bailouts.

Re Socialism: While the debate between free market and socialism will likely continue for some time, I'll say this much: government by its very nature is socialism. Men agree to abide by a series of laws in order to reap the benefits of living within a society. The question becomes: what is the degree of socialism/government that we as people accept, as balanced against how much freedom we as people want and how much we are willing to pay for. Generally speaking, this country was founded on the idea that freedom was more important than anything else; the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" comes to mind. That freedom of course comes with responsibility. Unfortunately, we've largely shirked those responsibilities for some time now.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Nfarce on 2/16/2009 9:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question becomes: what is the degree of socialism/government that we as people accept, as balanced against how much freedom we as people want and how much we are willing to pay for.


Well, considering that only 36% of this nation's AGI earners in the form of the top 5% pay 62% of all federal income taxes by US households/citizens, I'd say that question is a moot point from a minority perspective. Maybe someone should ask them how they feel during tax time (like now).

And regarding that, I would like to thank congress and our president for giving me back nothing, not even $13/week more in my paycheck that others will get in this "stimulus" package, because I earn a little over the salary cap limit.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 9:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll say this much: government by its very nature is socialism. Men agree to abide by a series of laws in order to reap the benefits of living within a society
I'd say you need to better understand the definition of socialism. Men agreeing to a law against murder, say, or equal representation for taxation does not in any way, shape, or form imply a socialistic system of government.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 11:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not attempting to say that all government equates to a purely socialist society.

I'm stating that any government is a social/societal instrument. Any action by the government is action by the society that government represents, at least in theory if not in practice. Any power wielded by that government corresponds to freedom/money/etc taken away from the individuals within that society. Therefore, anybody that values their personal freedom and money would do well to limit the power of government.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/17/2009 1:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm stating that any government is a social/societal instrument"

A social instrument, but not a socialist one. You've been seduced by the similarity in the words. Socialism involves state control and/or ownership of the means of production.

Laws against murder are not socialism. A "car czar" telling automakers how to run their business, however, is.


RE: Run for the Hills!
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 1:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that government was socialist in that sense.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki