backtop


Print 220 comment(s) - last by Tsuwamono.. on Jun 6 at 2:21 AM

GM just got a new owner -- the U.S. government

Today General Motors becomes the second of the Big Three domestic automakers to succumb to the recession and be placed in bankruptcy by the U.S. Treasury Department.  From once employing over 1 million people, between its employees and direct suppliers, GM has fallen, now becoming the largest industrial bankruptcy in the history of the United States.

The bankruptcy, filed at 8 a.m. this morning, was carefully crafted by the Obama administration's top officials and the U.S. Treasury Department.  The bankruptcy also marks the start of the largest nationalization of a corporate entity in U.S. history.  The government plans to invest an additional $30B USD in GM, bringing its total investment thus far to $50B USD.  In return, it will receive a 60 percent controlling ownership stake in the company when it exits bankruptcy protection.

Canada is also deeply tied to the company will also enjoy a part in the nationalization, taking on a 12 percent stake.  Unions get 17.5 percent and the bondholders are handed 10 percent and the right to buy greatly discounted GM stock.

The Obama administration calls the solution "permanent" and insists that this will be the final bailout for GM.  Meanwhile, it faces critics -- mostly shareholders and bondholders -- who believe it is giving favorable concessions to unions.  These groups are expected to get less out of the deal, and are banding together to voice their discontent.  A group calling themselves the Main Street Bondholders have formed and plan to voice their anger in court.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) supports the group, writing to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geitner, "The proposal seems to favor the rights and claims of the UAW, a political ally of the current administration and a powerful lobbying force in Washington, over the rights and claims of the company's diverse group of bondholders.  Contractual rights of investors are being trampled by the government under the rationale of 'extraordinary circumstances.'"

Under the new plan, the U.A.W. would exchange its $20B USD in pension and retirement obligations for the 17.5 percent stake and for $9B USD in notes and preferred stock.  Bondholders, which hold $27B USD in GM debt, only get a 10 percent stake and the right to later purchase discounted stock.  It should be noted though, that the Bush administration similarly supported larger cuts by bondholders, and smaller ones from the unions.  The cuts for both parties actually exceed those proposed by the Bush administration, which suggested a 50 percent reduction cut to the union trust, and a 66 percent cut for bondholders.

However, the complaints will likely fall on deaf ears -- similar complaints during Chrysler's bankruptcy process, albeit fewer and less organized, failed to gain traction in court.

During the bankruptcy GM plans to sell or liquidate its Pontiac and Hummer brands.  It will also sell and/or spin off several foreign brands -- Saab, Vauxhall, and Opel.  The Obama administration remains confident of the company's recovery, stating, "For the better part of a century, The General Motors Corporation has been one of the most recognizable and largest businesses in the world.  (Today) will rank as another historic day for the company -- the end of an old General Motors, and the beginning of a new one."



Comments     Threshold


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

By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
I love how everyone is so quick to jump on the Obama bashing wagon over his decision to try and bail out this sector; what else did you really expect him to do with 1 to 3 million jobs on the line?? (and before anyone gets their panties in a bunch with my 1 to 3 million jobs figure, you need to realize that also includes other companies that depend on these larger companies, e.g. parts manufacturers etc.)

I think a lot of the Obama bashers should really go back to elementary math class, because adding 1 to 3 million people to the unemployment line is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the bailout !!

I guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!! PATHETIC !!




By captainpierce on 6/1/2009 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think a lot of the Obama bashers should really go back to elementary math class, because adding 1 to 3 million people to the unemployment line is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the bailout !!

I guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!! PATHETIC !!


Where does it stop? What is the criteria for who gets a bailout and who doesn't? Are the President and Congress now the ultimate decider of such things?


By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
guess the Obama bashers would of rather had his administration add 1 to 3 million extra people to the already growing unemployment line; but then again these same people would then turn around and bash Obama for not stimulating the economy and creating jobs!!


Well not to offend you, but he hasnt done anything to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Maybe thats the reason he changed his promise from creating new jobs to creating or saving jobs.

Your number is BS and I know you'll disagree because you seem to take these union guesstimates as gospel.

The fact is if there is enough need for the vehciles in the first place another manufacturer would have to produce the cars, which means they would need more employees and plants. Stay with me here... Then they would need more supplies (or their current supplies would have to grow) to meet their needs.

Basically it comes down to producing enough of a product to meet the demand. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but i think you can do it.


By fownde on 6/2/2009 10:07:48 AM , Rating: 3
I've heard an interesting idea from many people floating around that would have cost the gov less, and stimulated the economy all in one. Give each adult over 18 a decent chunk of money. This amount has ranged from 100k to 1mil though I think the 1 mil would be way excessive. So we'll go with the 100k. Then, through the gift tax on it (which I believe is 15%). So you get 85k. A married couple would get 170k. Couple would then either buy a house or car or pay-off the one that is about to be foreclosed on thus helping the housing problem. Many people would be likely to buy cars possibly fixing the auto problem (though I'm not entirely in on this cuz so many have lost faith in the local auto companies and would possibly buy foreign instead.../shrug)

Anywho, the gist is basically if a smaller amount of money had been given out to the American people instead of bailing out the big companies (like the banks that just paid of CEO's) it would have prevented (or helped prevent) a recession. I'm not entirely sure I agree with all the numbers or that it woulda worked, but I think it would have had a better chance than what they're doing now and cost way less.


By BansheeX on 6/2/2009 10:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know the first thing about (austrian) economics. Wealth doesn't come from a printing press. The more dollars you print relative to products, the less their value/scarcity is relative to products. A price is how many dollars someone can sell a product for. Printing money just raises prices, discourages savings over consumption at the time it's most needed, forming a bubble with an inevitable bust. Since rising prices on goods/stocks makes bonds at low interest less attractive than goods/stocks, it forces the interest rate at which the bonds promise to pay skywards because otherwise no one will buy them. And if we don't raise them, who's going to finance our debt except for the Fed and their printing press?


In Democratic USA...
By GreenEnvt on 6/1/2009 10:15:52 AM , Rating: 5
In Democratic USA, car owns you!




RE: In Democratic USA...
By iFX on 6/1/2009 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
Congratulations! You win the universe. :)


RE: In Democratic USA...
By BansheeX on 6/2/2009 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
If we're going to become the USSA, we better start acting like it, comrades.


RE: In Democratic USA...
By msomeoneelsez on 6/2/2009 11:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
6

Please... really, make that a 6


let it die already
By IlllI on 6/1/2009 10:39:31 AM , Rating: 5
seriously, just let the damn company die.
they are at fault for getting themselves into this crap.

what ever happened to SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?

i for one dont want any of my tax dollars going to this crappy company. why? it wont benefit me at all, and i wont get anything out of it.

or, where is my 30 BILLION bailout mr. government?




RE: let it die already
By Chaser on 6/1/2009 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry it went to GM UAW pensions and healthcare benefits.


RE: let it die already
By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 11:52:46 AM , Rating: 3
@ IlllI,

I totally agree with you on this point, because if you or I had a business and our sales went in the toilet do you really think the government would rescue us, of course not, they would just sit back and watch you or I crash and burn !!

I guess if your not big business, or if your not, "donating", large sums of money to these political parties, you just don't matter.


who is in charge of breaking up GM
By tallredeye on 6/1/2009 5:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
A 31 year old who has never set foot in an auto plant is in charge of dismantling GM in his first government job. Great on-the-job learning experience!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese...




By Spuke on 6/1/2009 7:22:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A 31 year old who has never set foot in an auto plant is in charge of dismantling GM in his first government job.
GM filed Chapter 11. Look it up.


Blame it on the Unions
By jawqn8 on 6/1/2009 11:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that the unions are to blame completely but they sure didn't help matters out. Unions were necessary when people were working 15 hour days and getting payed a wage they couldn't survive on, but that is no longer the case. Unions were allowed to gain too much power and controlled the company too much. An example, is when the UAW went on strike the workers still collected a pay check, even though they weren't producing any product.




RE: Blame it on the Unions
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say my opinion on this matter has been swaying to the side of abolishing unions and relying on national working standards. There are so many more laws governing employment now than there were back when unions saved the West from Marxism. Perhaps it's time to look at what would be required from a regulation point of view to make unions redundant to the point we can shed this incredibly inefficient union system.

In my line of work, I will never be part of a union unless I change careers. However, back when I was in univiersity I had to belong to the Teaching Assistant union (whatever it was called). While doing an incredibly easy job helping a professor with a maximum of 10 hours per week of teaching duties, I was making an effective $35/hour - and that's if I needed to work all 10 hours. In reality, it was more like 5 hours/week so I was getting $70 an hour to work with a group of students. Cushy job? Hell yeah! And you know what? It wasn't good enough for half the union. They kept saying they wanted more because tuition was going up every year. While that's utterly ridiculous, the sad thing is the only people complaining are the ones who will probably never see that kind of wage/salary again in their lives. They're just not worth that much.


The irony of it all...
By IcePickFreak on 6/1/2009 3:55:53 PM , Rating: 2

Approx. 60 years ago:
-Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, US enters World War II (Oddly enough, for cutting off their funding and supply of oil.. go figure, the US was one of their major suppliers.)
-US Auto makers retool their manufacturing plants, GM being the biggest as they converted all their US plants over, to manufacture planes, tanks, trucks, ect
-Allies win the war, US hits it's golden era, car business is booming

Fast Foward about 60 years later:
-Japanese auto makers outsell US auto makers in the US
-Oil prices are all over the place, +25% in two days isn't even shocking any more. "Third-world" countries have more money than god.. and indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert.
-Entire rest of the world in massive recession. (OK, not the guys on Wall Street taking advantage of the peopl.. I mean situation)
-Citizens praise Japanese and German cars.
-2 of 3 auto makers to help the war effort in WW2 file chapter 11 bankruptcy after government help - US citizens spits at the US auto makers & government.
-Nothing to see here (government gives a couple hundred billion to financial sector ) go watch American Idol or something.

WTF happened?




RE: The irony of it all...
By IlllI on 6/2/2009 4:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
dumb people were allowed to reproduce


Meanwhile, Rick Waggoner....
By marvdmartian on 6/1/2009 10:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
....with his gazillion dollar golden parachute, sits at home humming, "We're number one! We're number one!!" ;)




UAW Pensions
By wallijonn on 6/1/2009 12:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the U.A.W. would exchange its $20B USD in pension and retirement obligations for the 17.5 percent stake and for $9B USD in notes and preferred stock.


This is certainly better than GM going into bankruptcy and raiding the pension fund to pay the creditors and bond holders. If GM does go fully under then they will lose everything, but time is on their side - as opposed to Enron, Gloabl Crossing, World Com, many NJ based pharmaceutical companies which raided their employee pension funds, and Polaroid, where only poverty was left in it's wake.




By flurazepam on 6/1/2009 5:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's
By axias41 on 6/2/2009 12:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's the American wwaaayyy!!!




By Beenthere on 6/1/2009 2:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
In the aftermath of this bloodbath millions of U.S. jobs are gone. Visteon and Metaldyne filed bankruptcy last week so it's all over now but the crying.




Hello turoists:
By Joz on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 10:04:29 AM , Rating: 1
It amazes me that we have just swapped positions...The US is the USSR and, somehow, Russia is the new beacon of freedom. Just read this article from Pravda...scary that the media in Russia is the only one that seems to understand how bad we all are.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459...


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 4
The Russian government controls the Russian media; of course their media says that.


RE: Hello turoists:
By captchaos2 on 6/2/2009 6:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
And the US govt. controls most of the US media, almost like Russia.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 10:19:12 AM , Rating: 4
I’m dead against government rescues of failing businesses, but I don’t get the whole communist/totalitarian comparison with the US government nationalizing failing banks and automakers.

Totalitarian governments, like in Venezuela, nationalize successful companies. They just do it to get their hands on the cash they generate so they can spend it on their pet socialist/military projects.

The US government is bailing these companies out in an attempt to protect key sectors of the economy. I don’t foresee the government hanging on to them any longer than necessary.

You can debate whether or not this is the right move, but when people start screaming about socialist motivations I can’t help but roll my eyes. The argument wreaks of partisan BS to get the masses onside.


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 10:38:51 AM , Rating: 5
I have to disagree with your short sight of history. Socialism started with the great society programs. It got bumps along the way including larger ones by Bush and Clinton.

I do agree that Obama is taking it to another level. It almost eems like he's trying to get it so far gone by the time mid-term elections occur that there will be no turning back.

We are nearing the fall of our country and the end of a democracy. Poeple have been telling me that for the last few years. I am finally starting to believe them.


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be contrarian, but just to point out - Bush also bucked that trend with the whole 'children's health care' debacle and Clinton with welfare reform. I've yet to see what Obama will do to try to strike a 'balance', but I hope against reason that it will come quickly.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 11:10:40 AM , Rating: 3
Not to correct your correction but the republican lead house pushed for welfare reform. Because the republicans held the purse string Clinton had no choice but to throw them a bone once in a while.

I'm responsible for my kids healthcare so I didnt follow that too closely. So I cant make any comments on that.


RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/2/2009 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
It was not a correction. I just showed that during both those administrations, there were forces that were able to successfully 'push back' against government spending, however infrequently they succeeded.

Not too sure how your kids' healthcare fit in. I think we ought to all be concerned with how the government spend our money, but it is a lot to keep up with.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Hiawa23 on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By B3an on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 5
In case you forgot, or you're just a 19 year old liberal hack from Media Matters, this country was founded by people who left other countries because they WERE crap!

Now, you people are trying to change this country into the type of country that people wanted to get away from....taxation, government control, entitlement, religous persecution, less control as a parent, less control of your daily lives, and seeing your disposable income shrink by the day because of the government.

Oh wait, did I just describe how the US is transitioning into the CRAP that burdens the lives of many of France, UK, Australia, etc.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Iaiken on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
There’s more to life than everybody being equal.

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:21:56 PM , Rating: 4
You know the old ARMY saying "Be all you can be"? that applies to all Americans. Those under the poverty line can only choose to be there.
You should read up on some history the first colonies on the North American continent, such as Jamestown and understand why they failed miserably.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:42:37 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, there is no better land of opportunity like the USA, and yet some would rather hang out and father kids all day and deny responsibility for anything. One forced watching of an episode of The Maury Show, opened my eyes. Why should the rest of us take up the slack of supporting the products of these people's romps in the hay? PUT ON A FRICKING CONDOM, we give them out for free.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
16th. United States 15.4%
What does this have to do with anything? Like Suntan said, just about everyone of those 15.4% can choose to improve their life dramatically. I, personally, moved from below poverty level to the upper middle class (and I am also "African" American). Anyone can do it, it just takes some drive, determination, and education. It's not really all that hard. The path is already laid out.


RE: Hello turoists:
By MrBungle123 on 6/1/2009 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 5
I really don't care about how many people live below the poverty line. Freedom is not about equality of outcome it is about equality of opportunity. This idea that if we simply build some sort of leftist utopia with social programs for every ill in life that everyone will be happy is a lie.

Satisfaction in life comes from accomplishing things on your own not having them handed to you on a silver platter by some nanny state bureaucracy. I would rather live under a bridge in a nation where I knew that I could scratch and crawl my way to prosperity beyond my wildest dreams with hard work and determination than live in another county with government provided housing, food, healthcare, transportation, and welfare where I was locked into a life of low end mediocrity because the majority of any wealth I generated was confiscated by government officials that think they know how to spend it better than I do.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
AMEN brother.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 3
The question that never gets asked to people who’s goal is the elimination of poverty, is what exactly do you need to achieve this goal? How high do you need to tax the productive people in society to raise the standard of living of the unproductive to an acceptable level? What is an acceptable level? Everyone in America is fed, housed (street people generally refuse shelter), and clothed. So what are you after?

You have to remember that 10-25% of your population in any society will consist of people who have no goals, and no aspirations in life. They essentially wake up each day, do what they need to do to feed themselves, and beyond that they just let life take them wherever it may. If you showed up at their door with a bag full of money, it would be gone tomorrow. Spent on whatever excited them at the moment, but certainly not invested for the future.

In times past, poverty was imposed by the ruling class using their power to actively oppress the average citizen through taxes, outright theft of property, and denial of recourses.

What made America so great was that the government did not impose these barriers, and left people to their own devises. The American Dream used to be about everyone having a level playing field. It could mean that you could choose to work hard, save your money, and better your life. Or it could mean that you sit under the sun, smell the roses, and enjoy only what god provides. Life was supposed to be about what you made it.

Somewhere along the line the American Dream got twisted to be about equality. The right to live just like everyone else. Can’t feed yourself? Here’s some food. Don’t want to work for a house? We’ll give you one. Kids have no clothes? Here ya go. Got cancer? I’ll spend millions if that’s what it takes to make you better – you’re entitled to it.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I agree, some Americans are so dramatic, thumping their chest, & rubbing it in everyone's face.


Actually, during most of my travels abroad, or when spending time with expat colleagues here, I almost always run into two or three people that go out of their way to tell me how their country is better than America at one specific thing or another. Most recently, had a Brit go on about how their temperate climates allowed their farms to be more bountiful than America's (as we were driving through the Midwest no less.) Had a guy in Prague constantly telling me how their beer was better than ours. A guy in France at a “fancy” restaurant going on about some beef dish that was prepared with cow flesh that wouldn’t even pass muster in any local greasy spoon in any small town in America… Always the same, they find out you are American and then rag on you based on some inconsequential specifics. A guy in Denmark that had to stop the conversation at the dinner banquet to point out to me (and everyone else) that the restaurant we were eating in was older than our country.

I’ve never traveled with a fellow American that went on about how someone else’s country or culture was rubbish because of this or that technicality. If I had to put a finger on it, I would say that most non-Americans are just so mad that most Americans could care less that this country produces 32% more chocolate per capita than America does. Deal with it.

There are rednecks in Paris just as plainly as there are in Kansas City. There are Hillbillies in the countryside that surround Prague just as there are around Knoxville, TN. There are crusty deadbeats all over Dublin same as there are in San Francisco. There are scammers and street thugs in Milan same as in New York.

If you don’t think America is all that great of a place, move to some place that makes you happier. In lieu of that, why don’t you spend a bit of your free time trying to change it into a place that you do feel proud of. …Or you can just continue to piss’n moan about it.

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By Hiawa23 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't know me, so I don't want to change anything, I live life, let live, & mind my own business.
Then why bother to post?


RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 2:41:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Here's the thing, & I think many minorities agree with me.


I really don’t see what race has to do with it. So you’re a minority, big deal. You want a cookie for that? You’ve got a SS card right? Therefore you are just like the 300 million others of us when it comes to discussions of patriotism.

quote:
I know this is a great country & I don't have to do the things I mentioned in my earlier post like some do by rubbing it in everyone's else face displaying this attitude


I've never seen someone "rub" their Americanism in someone's face. Me thinks you are just seeing what you want to see.

If you really boil down your argument, what you are actually saying is that you just don’t like it when other people don’t act like you… …that is just plain selfishness and closed mindedness, nothing to do with race or patriotism.

quote:
I do believe you can be Patriotic without all the theater that you see out there especially on FOX News.


News flash, the union does not march in lock step with Fox News. I am ardently against all the “It’s ok to be a wimp in everything you do as long as you vote Democrat” rhetoric that is being pumped out by the left as any other person, but I can’t say as I’ve watched more than an hour of Fox News in my life.

If you’re watching Fox News even though you don’t like its message, you have issues. And if you’re best argument against “America” is that Fox News is our mouthpiece, you need to open your eyes and get a better understanding of the country you are in the middle of.

quote:
I don't want to change anything,


So you do just want to sit and piss’n moan…

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By rcc on 6/1/2009 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 3
It's an age old attitude. The have nots want what the haves have.

But these days, rather than build themselves up, they'd just as soon drag them down to their level. Because the perception isn't about what they actually have, as long as no one has it better.

Clear as mud?

: )


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/4/2009 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Poor choice of expression on my part. I should have said something like, "Bush was not innocent of the bailouts." Certainly he didn't "start" it. Duh on me.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 1
The point you're trying to make is right, but it's not quite true that we don't own any companies. We own plenty of companies, called crown corporations. We used to own a hell of a lot more. Even some mining operations were crown corporations.

It doesn't seem to me that there has been any improvement in the health of our democracy since many or most of these corporations were spun off into private businesses. Rather, I think the two concepts are completely unrelated, which I understand is the point of your post.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well when you don't have to spend money on defence becasue you southern neighbor has you covered you can take that money and give it away to all the free loaders. I am not ready to give up of my any of my freedoms for governemnt hand outs. Personally i just want to be left the hell alone.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wish there was a way to make them share the cost.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wish there was a way to make them share the cost.
I like the Canadians but sometimes I wish we could just go back to being isolationist.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
I wish too, but I guess it's too late now. If only the Wright brothers knew how their feat eventually enabled 2 World Wars.


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
I’d say we’re sharing the costs now, but we have some catching up to do.

Some historical perspective is in order.

Once you take our small population into account, Canada’s military spending was on par with most modern countries until the 1990’s when decades of back to back deficit spending finally caught up with us. Our debt to GDP ratio was approaching 100%, and the US media began referring to Canada as a “bankrupt 2nd world country”. We were running deficits at 8% of GDP, and the credit rating agencies began to downgrade our debt ratings as people feared we would default on our debt.

When reality hit, the government was forced to slash spending. The bulk of the cuts were in healthcare, and the armed forces. After a few years with no budget, or armed forces were a shell of their former selves, however we have been steadily rebuilding them for the past 5-6 years. Our military has been doing all the heavy lifting in Afghanistan (with the US), we bought new subs a few years ago, we just bought a bunch of new choppers, and the military is eying a Stryker purchase, as well as new frigates.
America is looking a lot like Canada in the 1990’s right now. I wonder what you’re military budget will look like in 10-15 years from now…


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/2/2009 11:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
Which is alot more then other NATO countries are doing. I feel we are on that current path lets hope America wakes up to the idiocy.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Tsuwamono on 6/6/2009 2:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
We do spend quite a bit of our budget on armed forces and we have one of the best trained armies in the world. Keep in mind our army trains a lot of yours.


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Are you joking? I mean imagine if there were no USA below your country. You guys would be half French colony and half English colony. Probably part Japanese and Russian too. Notice how 90% of your population lives within 80 miles of US border or something thereabouts?

Understand that first, before posting about how great your country is.

We don't expect any gratitude per se, but think twice before running your mouth about how much better your country is than ours.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Crowbar77 on 6/1/2009 9:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Notice how 90% of your population lives within 80 miles of US border or something thereabouts?


Well a big reason is because of the warmer climate...


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 10:39:29 AM , Rating: 4
One of my good friends LIVED in the USSR growing up and he recognizes how crazy this is. He and his family sold everything they had to escape the US and now we're going down the same road.

The government can claim all they want that they'll get rid of their stake as soon as possible. I doubt it. Look at the banks who are trying to repay the TARP money they didn't want in the first place. They're being told that they'll be "allowed" to repay it slowly over time even if they want to repay it all at once.


RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hello turoists:
By acase on 6/1/2009 11:25:34 AM , Rating: 3
...obviously just a typo. Really not THAT confusing.


RE: Hello turoists:
By crystal clear on 6/1/2009 11:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you got to go to Russia to see for yourself like I do & did- (I am NOT from the USSR)

You could then & now SELL & BUY anything under the sky - A highly regulated market under the watchful eye of the corrupt govt officials & the police,who get their due commissions plus overidding commisions.

You have the local mafia that acts as a revenue collection agency.

Officially this does NOT exist... but ...it does

Everybody is happy in this arrangement...the buyer the seller the regulators & the revenue collection agencies.

A thriving trade & nobody complains.


RE: Hello turoists:
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 12:16:21 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see how its confusing. They lived there when he was young, then sold everything they had to escape to the US. They took great risk to get here as you weren't allowed to just leave if you wanted to and had the money.


RE: Hello turoists:
By hyvonen on 6/1/2009 2:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
I was confused as well; I didn't know if you meant that they escaped to the USA, or escaped the USA and went somewhere else... Typos and poor grammar can cause significant confusion.


RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 1
he was missing the "to" from "escape TO the US". now it makes sense :)


RE: Hello turoists:
By arazok on 6/1/2009 10:53:48 AM , Rating: 4
You’re argument doesn’t make sense. Obama doesn’t need to take ownership of these companies to make them produce the cars he wants. He can just legislate it.

All governments have the power to make any company do anything they want it to. The only motivation for governments to nationalize a company is to take its assets. But these companies are worthless money losers, so I can’t see any reason for doing this other then what the government claims – to bail them out.

I agree that this IS a socialist move. It’s taking money from everyone, and giving it to a few. It is not, however, an evil government plot to control the economy for some nefarious purpose. It’s just stupid politics as usual. Nobody wants to face the wrath of a bunch of out of work union people.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
First, he cant technically legislate anything. He isnt part of the legislative branch anymore, although that doesnt seem to matter these days.

Second, the government is already moving up the standards to make it harder for SUV's and Trucks to exist. Although not as fast as he'd like.

Third, there are other things the govermnet can do as 60% majority holder that would take years to legislate.

Lastly, screw the union, they helped casue this as did the workers who waited far too long to make concessions.


RE: Hello turoists:
By danrien on 6/1/2009 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think anybody is under the illusion that he can legislate it. That doesn't prevent him from proposing legislation that his party would vote for.


RE: Hello turoists:
By nycromes on 6/2/2009 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about one thing, its not about the cars that will be made. Its about taking a huge group (the unions) and giving them what they want. They will become govt employees and they will of course give votes to the people that gave them jobs and income.

All of these socialist programs are about one thing. The politicians getting more votes. I think at this time its pretty obvious the left wants people dependent on the govt, you can't get rid of something you depend on. And there are enough impoverished people in this country to keep them in power. Its a smart plan, but not one in the best interests of our country. I hope people wake up and see the writing on the wall.

To the people calling everyone dramatic, they aren't being dramatic, but they are looking ahead at what is coming. Today it's GM, tomorrow what will it be? Where is the line drawn? Can you answer that? Thats what all the fuss is about, if you think they are being overly dramatic, you are looking at this in a very short sighted manner. Try thinking long term. Do you know of any politician that willingly gave away power after they got it?


RE: Hello turoists:
By nycromes on 6/2/2009 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about one thing, its not about the cars that will be made. Its about taking a huge group (the unions) and giving them what they want. They will become govt employees and they will of course give votes to the people that gave them jobs and income.

All of these socialist programs are about one thing. The politicians getting more votes. I think at this time its pretty obvious the left wants people dependent on the govt, you can't get rid of something you depend on. And there are enough impoverished people in this country to keep them in power. Its a smart plan, but not one in the best interests of our country. I hope people wake up and see the writing on the wall.

To the people calling everyone dramatic, they aren't being dramatic, but they are looking ahead at what is coming. Today it's GM, tomorrow what will it be? Where is the line drawn? Can you answer that? Thats what all the fuss is about, if you think they are being overly dramatic, you are looking at this in a very short sighted manner. Try thinking long term. Do you know of any politician that willingly gave away power after they got it?


RE: Hello turoists:
By grandpope on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By bhieb on 6/1/2009 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ld enough to remember


Not born in 1989 you troll rather old enough to understand the implications in 1989 so presumably 40+ now.


RE: Hello turoists:
By grandpope on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 1
I agree. I don't like the government hands in this but it's needed until GM can do without. The comparison to Russia, now especially, is very baffling. I don't think these people see clearly what each country IS doing and provide link here and there to satisfy and fulfill their reasoning.

Maybe they would like to try these kinds of talks in Russia or China and see if they wouldn't end up in a ditch somewhere or in "training camps."


RE: Hello turoists:
By PARANOID365 on 6/1/2009 11:39:05 AM , Rating: 1
I completely agree, people really need to stop with this, "evil government plot business". If these same people ever got just a little taste of what it's truly like to live in a country like China or Russia, they would be quickly tucking their tails between their legs and begging to come back to North America !!


RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:52:15 AM , Rating: 5
It does, except they didn't give it to the people; they gave it to the lobbyist and special interest groups that help put them in power.

This deserves no fancy name; it is simply robbery.


RE: Hello turoists:
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 10:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call it a bailout, but a government forcing an ownership change and giving it to the people sounds like Marxism to me.

I think we all know Obama is a Marxist. Thats not news. The only correction I have is that he is not giving it to the people. He is giving a chunk to the union (which is not the people) and another large chunk to the federal government.

On another note, I wonder if we'll all get dividend checks when GM becomes profitable.. OK I'm joking, we all know the federal government cant run a profitable gumball machine.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Helbore on 6/1/2009 12:22:07 PM , Rating: 1
Buying up a failing company isn't really forcing an ownership change, though. No more than a hostile takeover, anyway.

If the government came in and ordered the shareholders to turn over their rights of ownership without buying out the company, it would be like the old communist states.

But, as I read it, the government is buying out a company that is about to go bust. They are not forcing an ownership change, because the owners are happy to sell a company that is about to fall into the dirt.

Its no different than if some big multinational corporation came along and bought out GM. The ONLY difference is that its the US government fielding the capital.

So the only issue is whether or not the government should be investing public money into private industry and there are lots of big questions that go along with that (eg. would the government be losing more tax income by letting GM go under than they are losing by investing in it). But I see very little Marxist about this.

In fact, calling it Marxist seems to be greatly oversimplifying the basis of Marxism.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 1:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
The govt owning business is Marxism...There is a large difference between an enterprise buying a company and the Govt.

The fact that GM wasn't purchased by another company is very telling. Businesses only buy businesses if they feel they can profit or advance from the purchase. That nobody did, means that there is very little sentiment in the market, that GM will ever be viable, much less investment grade.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2009 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are exactly the type of person that belongs in a totalitarian society.
quote:
What me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman


RE: Hello turoists:
By sxr7171 on 6/1/2009 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 1
Well it remains to be seen. Why isn't there an exit strategy or did this article miss that whole aspect?

If in 5 years all shares are sold back to private investors then the end result would have been positive. In some ways we need this to prevent unions from ever again becoming so powerful in our critical manufacturing industries.


RE: Hello turoists:
By deltadeltadelta on 6/1/2009 10:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
That is a chilling article.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Iaiken on 6/1/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Pravda would never lie,

I wouldn't have known I could breast feed had they not told me...

http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/25-01-2008...

:P


RE: Hello turoists:
By crystal clear on 6/1/2009 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
An article that appeared in the WSG-

DECEMBER 29, 2008 As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S

For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.



I dont agree with these views, but just post it to show how the Russians think about & view the USA.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Bender 123 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hello turoists:
By crystal clear on 6/1/2009 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt if the USA will ever come to the point of a break up.
If the great depression was NOT powerful enough to break up the USA then a great recession of today will NOT do so.
USA as country has passed many a sress tests to prove its a strong & stable country immune to any collapse.


RE: Hello turoists:
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 2:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of people just assume all countries act alike. They don’t.

Italy is not like Germany (Just drive down the road in a major city in either country and see for yourself.) Scotland does not act like Spain (it doesn’t even act like GB.) Try waiting for a crosswalk to turn green on an empty street in Amsterdam and you will find you have been left behind by your native friends. Try crossing an empty road in Denmark and you will have the natives shouting out asking you what you think you are doing.

America’s society does not work like Russia’s society. For good/ bad they don’t work the same at all levels and they don’t respond the same to similar macroeconomic and social stimulus.

Look at Japan as one example, their morbid 90’s were so slow to turn around because the first ¾ of the decade all they wanted to do was ignore that there was a problem.

I forget the name of the foreign dignitary that Charlie Rose had on his show a couple months back (when the talk by everyone was that America is “going to crater”) and his comment was basically to the point that, “You shouldn’t ever discount the American’s ability to re-invent themselves.” I think that’s true. …I just hope that what we (read: Obama) is currently inventing us into is mild and quickly passed on in favor of a more common sense direction.

-Suntan


RE: Hello turoists:
By MrPickins on 6/1/2009 1:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like wishful thinking to me...


RE: Hello turoists:
By Boze on 6/2/2009 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Of course he wants Alaska to revert to Russian control. No Russians are going to outwardly protest the drilling of all that oil over some penguins and polar bears.


Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By SpaceJumper on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:16:13 AM , Rating: 5
They are. Is there another single sentence into which you can distill this complex series of failures?


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 10:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks

Yes, blame it on the products that are actually selling - in the fact the best selling types in America for 20 years going.

If you want to actually be serious about your hybrid and small cars stuff - then you better realize that the profit margin of those is much much smaller than the SUV/Truck profit margin. Therefore, GM would have been WORSE off because they couldnt afford their business model as it was with high profit margins.

People didn't just stop buying trucks and suv's....people stopped buying EVERYTHING. When will you morons get that into your heads. You can make a company produce something, but it doesn't mean that anyone besides YOU is going to want it - evidence of what people are buying right now: TRUCKS and SUV's.


By SpaceJumper on 6/1/2009 10:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota made the same mistake by making too many SUVs. As advertised, if you buy a SUV and you will get an Echo for free.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By Rev1 on 6/1/2009 10:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
Not true, we WANTED those big vehicles. If you look at the history of our vehicles we always liked big cars with engines to boot. Who the hell really wants to drive a sissy 4banger hybrid, that you feel you can run faster than? Should they have foreseen the banks ruining this country? While fixing gas prices to pad their hedge funders because of the financial disaster they created in the housing market? The main issue with American cars was build quality anyway not gas mileage. Now thats not to say they shouldnt have entered the "green" segment earlier than they did. You should be blaming the american way of life as well as the trucks and suv's.


By deltadeltadelta on 6/1/2009 10:36:09 AM , Rating: 3
Business is much more complicated than this.


By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 10:43:00 AM , Rating: 4
Christ you're an idiot. Read the article today about how Ford wants to take advantage of all this to boost its market share. They're actually building MORE trucks this month than they did last year in the same month because why? THEY'RE SELLING MORE! What isn't selling well? The vast majority of hybrids.

God forbid companies build and sell cars people are trying to buy. It doesn't matter if its unwise to buy a truck since gas prices eventually will go up again. That's for the consumer to deal with. Not the automaker. If you buy something without considering the purchase, that's your problem. It isn't the company who made it's fault that you bought it and then regretted the purchase later.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By Nfarce on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By nathanvaneps on 6/1/2009 11:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
Six months ago there was a five month wait on a new Toyota Prius. I know because I asked a dealer. I guess there could be be unsold Prius' on lots, but I think its more likely that production has just caught up.


By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 11:35:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
but I think its more likely that production has just caught up.

Because people are buying ANYTHING, much less a Prius. It may get 40MPG, but you still needs to finance $23000 to buy one, and when 1/8 homeowners are behind on their mortgage...well, thats not going to happen.

Right now, people could care less about a Prius or a Tahoe. They just aren't will to buy anything at all, regardless how good of a deal, or how good for the environment, or how much Obama wants them to.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By IcePickFreak on 6/1/2009 2:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Six months ago there was a five month wait on a new Toyota Prius. I know because I asked a dealer.


Yeah, more like he didn't have any on the lot that day and was fueling the hype machine. I would bet money that if you had really expressed interest, in a week or two (at most) he would of called you because "It's your lucky day!" You could be driving home a brand new prius for sticker, if not more.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, more like he didn't have any on the lot that day and was fueling the hype machine.
I agree. At 8385 units sold in April and dropping, there aren't any waiting lists for the Prius or anything else for that matter. BTW, last April Toyota sold 21,757 Prius'. Don't believe the hype.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By jjmcubed on 6/1/2009 11:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, sorry... There was a 4 month wait in Sacramento about 6 months ago. They were buying used Prius and selling them for MORE than new list. Not hype as you say, but real supply and demand issues. Nice try though. I can give you an update tomorrow if you really want to know.


By IcePickFreak on 6/2/2009 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They were buying used Prius and selling them for MORE than new list. Not hype as you say, but real supply and demand issues.


If that's not the hype machine at 110%, I don't know what is.

Regardless, you explained it all when you said Sacramento.


RE: Blame it on the SUVs and Trucks
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 7:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nope, sorry... There was a 4 month wait in Sacramento about 6 months ago.
Artificial wait list. See my post above. There's plenty of capacity for Toyota to make more Prius'. They made almost 3 times as many a year ago. Why do you think they can't do that now given the so-called demand?


We need a totalitarian form of government
By BaronMatrix on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 5
You scare me.

I demand you take a mandatory higher education in history lessons.

But seriously though, maybe mandatory re-training and work placement for folks on welfare would be a good thing.


By superflex on 6/1/2009 1:13:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, casual Friday ruined GM and Chrysler.
WTF are you smoking?


RE: We need a totalitarian form of government
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 1:51:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If people aren't going to do it for themselves it is the right and responsibility of the gov't to do it for them.

The governments role is to protect the nation from other countries, that was only reason it was created to begin with. The documents created were done so that future governments could NOT take things away from you. There was no taxation, no gun laws, no one bailing anyone or anything out. It was meant to be an every many for himself, and you couldnt do it, too bad. And thats exactly how it should be. If you want to enforce some agenda in the United States like what you are suggesting, perhaps you should leave...and dont let the door hit you on the way out. Becuase you will not control what I do, what my kids do, or what their kids will do...only they will control that.


By Suntan on 6/1/2009 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People dress like bums everywhere I go


Maybe you should move out of the trashy part of town…

quote:
obviously the workers aren't doing much to move companies forward when everyone is living for CASUAL FRIDAY.


If you think American companies are rather sloth-like, go visit companies in Europe. The reality might surprise you. But then, if you are comparing everything to your co-workers at Wendy’s then yes, there is little motivation.

quote:
If people aren't going to do it for themselves it is the right and responsibility of the gov't to do it for them.


No thanks. I have colleagues from countries that are run like that. I’d rather my son grow up having to shoulder the added burden of all the deadbeats than have him grow up in your kind of world.

quote:
and mandatory job training programs.


The world needs ditch diggers too.

-Suntan


In my lifetime
By Rev1 on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: In my lifetime
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 10:26:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I feel i will see the downfall of the USA with each state succeeding from the union

Right now, I dont see that as a downfall. I see that as a good thing. And I will gladly relocate to Texas when that happens, to get away from these crazy environmentalists, liberals, taxation, socialized everything, and whatever else forms of socialism and empathy they try to force down my throat.


RE: In my lifetime
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 10:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
Want a roommate? I've got family there already.


RE: In my lifetime
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 10:43:44 AM , Rating: 3
That is assuming you would be allowed to move.


RE: In my lifetime
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 10:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know my spider senses are tingling >_>!?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/200...


RE: In my lifetime
By omgwtf8888 on 6/1/2009 1:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
The stated Role of the Civil War was to end Slavery. Now, a black President may riding in the saddle when the next division occurs. There is a strong voice for separation for many States. In terms of GDP Texas would rank 12th among all the countries of the world. California would rank 7th, New York 13th, Florida 19th, and Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey 21st through 24th. These State are also what I like to refer to as payer States, in that they pay more into Washington then the get back. These States are essentially supporting the poorer/welfare States. From a purely financial standpoint these states would do better to go it alone. However, when you consider the wars and violence that would occur between the have and have-not States, it is clear that we need a better resolve. I personally, believe that we need to take this opportunity of the government owning GM to move the jobs they create back into the US.


RE: In my lifetime
By acase on 6/1/2009 10:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
Your tin foil is a little tight there my friend. Loosen up.


RE: In my lifetime
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 10:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly I don't think it is. As much as I would hate to see it, I think it will happen if things continue to go the way they are. States are getting fed up with the government. It has gone way past its constitutional authority and all indicators point to no signs of it stopping or even slowing down.


RE: In my lifetime
By clovell on 6/1/2009 11:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
The reliance the states have on the federal government almost precludes a full secession. If any state left, it would almost certainly need to keep some kind of ties with Washington, and the fallout for that state and the rest of the nation would shatter the image of the United States as a leading world power.

Yeah, I hate what's going on in Washington, and yeah I voted aginst a lot of it. Secession crosses my mind, but I don't think it will happen unless the economy has already collapsed and the states have far less to lose. At which point, a secession could very likely cascade into an economic revolution, as the federal government of the former US of A becomes insolvent.

Consider this. The Civil War was fought, because after ther North has completed the industrialization of their economy, they grew a conscience and imposed it on the South. The South's entire agrarian economy and lifestyle hinged on slavery. The southern states had a lot to lose. States' rights could be debated and slavery could be reformed, but the economic pressures placed on the South are what ultimately lead the USA to civil war.


RE: In my lifetime
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 12:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reliance the states have on the federal government almost precludes a full secession.
Succeed then form a new federal government is more than likely what would happen. The money that the government has belongs to the people (states). There's really nothing the gov could do as the military resides in the states.


RE: In my lifetime
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 2:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
SECEDE!!!


RE: In my lifetime
By The0ne on 6/1/2009 10:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
A LOT of people are very worry about the state of the nation. So worry they DO need tin foil on their head. One of my colleague is the same. Nice engineer but insane on the Obama bashing, the downfall of US, nuclear wars, etc. Insane. Best thing to do is avoid them imo. You will never get a good conversation or debate with them, period.


RE: In my lifetime
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He will never get a good conversation or debate with you, period.


Fixed it for you, as my guess is he is using facts while you would rather ignore those.

-Suntan


RE: In my lifetime
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
FYI--

Retarded neo-con whaaarrrgaaaarrrbl is not, as you put it, "facts".


RE: In my lifetime
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 12:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah only "its bush's fault" and "its the oil company's fault" are.


RE: In my lifetime
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
And he neither alluded to or said that any of it was.

If you're going to build a proper strawman, put a little more effort into it.


RE: In my lifetime
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're going to build a proper strawman, put a little more effort into it.
Somehow, I don't think he was going for the strawman reply.


RE: In my lifetime
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 1:13:21 PM , Rating: 1
Sure he was. Obviously the OP (or anyone that doesn't agree with the neo-cons) couldn't possibly argue any sort of liberal perspective without invoking the "but Bush..."


RE: In my lifetime
By superflex on 6/1/2009 1:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Label people much?


RE: In my lifetime
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 2:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
That sailed right over your head apparently. I was not going for any kind of straw man argument.


RE: In my lifetime
By Suntan on 6/1/2009 4:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
I’ll bite… Just what do you consider to be the top 5 “Neo Con facts” that are mis-used by people you call Neo Con? And what do you consider to be the “real truth” about those subjects?

-Suntan


RE: In my lifetime
By Suntan on 6/2/2009 1:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
...Didn't think I would get a repsonse to this one. People are all too quick to throw out terms like "Neo Con" but they don't even know what it means.

-Suntan


RE: In my lifetime
By rcc on 6/2/2009 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, Neo Con. Isn't that about what a liberal was 25 years ago?

: )


RE: In my lifetime
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 10:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
The scary thing is that the more bailouts there are, the more people become dependent on the govt. The more people become dependent on the govt, the less they will fight for their rights.

No tin foil involved in it. It is scary to see how nobody thinks that spending trillions of dollars to save failing businesses will cause our money to be worthless, just give me more "free" govt services. How long until countries wont buy our debt? When that happens, we will need to print money...As we print more money inflation goes up. You thought $4.50 per gallon gas was bad? Wait for the presses to role. Then call me and tell me about how expensive tin foil tin foil is.


RE: In my lifetime
By zombiexl on 6/1/2009 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 1
There is a revolution brewing. Although like you say too many people are dependant on the government and not willing to fight for their rights if they might lose their free digital converter coupons.


RE: In my lifetime
By PrinceGaz on 6/1/2009 11:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I feel i will see the downfall of the USA with each state succeeding from the union becoming their own small countries.


Did you mean "succeeding" or "seceding"? I'm guessing the latter as it makes more sense.


RE: In my lifetime
By adiposity on 6/1/2009 11:30:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I feel i will see the downfall of the USA with each state succeeding from the union becoming their own small countries. Because we will be publicly held by china and the likes.


Don't forget our poor education system.

-Dan


RE: In my lifetime
By MonkeyPaw on 6/1/2009 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed."
-Curly Howard


RE: In my lifetime
By biggsjm on 6/1/2009 11:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
If there is a downfall, it will be due to the education (or lack therof) of America's youth.

Read what you wrote. "each state SUCCEEDING from the union", shouldn't that be "seceeding"? Or how about "becoming their own small countries", which is the first use of a passive double-possessive that I've ever seen. Finally, "publicly held by china and the likes." I believe it is "and the like." Also, I'm not sure that 'publicly held' is appropriate, considering that if China were to call in their debt, we would be forced to pay them or give them some sort of collateral. This would be possession in ownership.

Now onto the discussion at hand. Don't read too much into this. GM's failure was brought forth by inefficiencies built into the business process over their 101-year history. Obligations to suppliers, dealers, and most-notably, unions, forced them to operate at a much higher cost-per unit than their competition. With the auto-industry currently producing about 95 million units per year and the market only demanding 55 million, inefficient organizations were bound to be hit hard.

This is capatalism at work. Nothing more.

Anyone who's trying to sell you on the idea that this is the beginning of the end for the US is looking for a attention-grabbing sound byte.


RE: In my lifetime
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 1
Shhhhh.... you're harshing the buzz on all of this ZOMG OBAMA SOCIALIST TELEPROMPTER MARXISM gibberish that DT is full of nowadays.

Seriously, most of the comments on DT are just as retarded as something you would read on freerepublic.


RE: In my lifetime
By superflex on 6/1/2009 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like the liberal nonsense of your beloved Huffinton Post. I hear the 100,000 douchebag to sigh up for their forums gets a free Obama butt-plug and anal lube.
What are you waiting for?


RE: In my lifetime
By Regs on 6/1/2009 1:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
I can't stand Huffinton or anyone that lived in California for more than 5 years.


RE: In my lifetime
By Rev1 on 6/1/2009 9:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
What is it with the grammar police now and days? get a life


RE: In my lifetime
By Rev1 on 6/1/2009 10:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
y biggsjm on June 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM

If there is a downfall, it will be due to the education (or lack therof) of America's youth.

Read what you wrote. "each state SUCCEEDING from the union", shouldn't that be "seceeding"? Or how about "becoming their own small countries", which is the first use of a passive double-possessive that I've ever seen. Finally, "publicly held by china and the likes." I believe it is "and the like." Also, I'm not sure that 'publicly held' is appropriate, considering that if China were to call in their debt, we would be forced to pay them or give them some sort of collateral. This would be possession in ownership."

Wtf is a passive double possessive, this is a tech site not harvard english study. Why do you feel the need to bash my terminology have you nothing else more exciting to do in your boring life? O wow i misspelled a word the world is ending...get a life. and right now we are being held like stock by china.


Weclome to Welfare Motors
By michal1980 on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Iaiken on 6/1/2009 11:36:13 AM , Rating: 5
If you think that the other party would have done things differently, you are sorely mistaken. There is documented proof, even alluded to in this very article of a Republican plan that would have likewise seen the nationalization of GM. However, since you seem to be galvanized against the truth, I’m actually writing this for the benefit of other open minded people who like to weigh the facts in their decision making.

The system was failing, the Republican and Democratic parties alike had hands in forging the solution surrounding the banks and major auto makers. The ultimate goal of both parties was to prevent a recession from becoming a full-blown depression and to protect the livelihoods of their constituencies. The gamble still has yet to play out and writing your incumbent senators and governors is a much more effective avenue for change than some uninformed bitchy post on a tech forum.

As for health care, it is unfortunate that I have to agree that a nation-wide health care system simply wouldn’t work in the US due to the unique challenges facing many states and tremendous logistics involved. Many countries that have effective and efficient public health care are of small population and of high population density such as France, Britain, Canada (over 90% of the population is condensed along the border), Sweden etc. With the exception of California and the eastern seaboard, the American population is significantly sprawled across the country. Add in problems with illegal immigrants in the south/south west and such a system would collapse under their weight. Several states likely could support socialized medicine (Washington, NY, Delaware and a few others), but it is highly unlikely due to the stigma that has been woven into the societal fiber.

Ironically, it is actually in everyone’s best interest to have an educated and healthy population so that the nation can outcompete others, but we humans are (for the most part) too short sighted and selfish to aspire to giving everyone an equal opportunity to be exploited.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Every hispanic person you see, believe it or not, is not an illegal.

Did you run up to all of these people and ask for identification?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't just seriously suggest that FIT should be going around asking EVERY hispanic for some identification did you?

Wow... just, wow.

What about when pedro refuses to show some ID because he is insulted? Should FIT then dispense some of his 'murican-style vigilante justice and hand the guy a beat down while simultaneously deporting him in his cobalt ss?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 3:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well my thought on it is that if I encounter a hispanic and they don't speak English, what reason do I have to believe they are not an illegal alien? They certainly don't care enough about the US to learn English. So why should I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're a legal American?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 3:31:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So why should I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're a legal American?

Because the ACLU says so? And Obama said not to worry about them learning English...he says you should learn Spanish. lol. What an douchebag that guy is.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mikeyD95125 on 6/1/2009 7:43:27 PM , Rating: 1
You are ungrateful for all the hard work illegals do to benefit the U.S. I'd like to see you and few million other people get up from a comfortable lifestyle and do all the jobs illegal immigrants do. You are being hypocritical every time you sit down to eat a salad or have a piece of steak. If they want to come here and do the jobs no one else wants to do then I won't complain about it. You shouldn't either.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 8:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
If we got rid of the welfare system, you'd suddenly see all those US citizen who "dont want to do that job" lining up to do the job.

So don't give me this "ungrateful" b.s. If anything, they should be grateful that they have broken our laws and yet we still pay for their health care and other social programs even though we're losing jobs every day and our disposable income in decreasing due to increased taxation.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Rev1 on 6/1/2009 9:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
"by mikeyD95125 on June 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM

You are ungrateful for all the hard work illegals do to benefit the U.S. I'd like to see you and few million other people get up from a comfortable lifestyle and do all the jobs illegal immigrants do. You are being hypocritical every time you sit down to eat a salad or have a piece of steak. If they want to come here and do the jobs no one else wants to do then I won't complain about it. You shouldn't either."

Ok if mowing a lawn or shoveling cow crap or laying down cement on a house flip is really to our benefit, than them costing millions in healthcare sticking us with higher premiums, not paying tax's, and not having the common decency to atleast learn how to say thank you to the gas station clerk they just bought some budweiser from, isnt huh?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mikeyD95125 on 6/1/2009 11:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ok if mowing a lawn or shoveling cow crap or laying down cement on a house flip is really to our benefit, than them costing millions in healthcare sticking us with higher premiums, not paying tax's, and not having the common decency to atleast learn how to say thank you to the gas station clerk they just bought some budweiser from, isnt huh?


Hmmmm those seem to all be things Americans do.
Until you start growing all the food you and your family eat you might as well accept the fact you need illegal immigrants.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mindless1 on 6/2/2009 1:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
No, we don't. The country ran fine before there were as large a % of them, they are simply stealing away jobs by working cheaper because they aren't being held to the same expenses citizens bear.

Further, not quite sure where you got the idea the immigrants are turning into farmers, there are legal citizens with family farms and corporations large enough they can't risk the interruption of their business with law enforcement stopping production to check IDs. Of course there's bound to be some illegals doing farming, but I will speculate they are far more interested in service & labor jobs near modest to larger sized cities away from farms, jobs with smaller contractors like lawn care, construction, home repair, etc.

I'm not suggesting they don't deserve pay for work, rather I am suggesting that so long as it is the law that they are illegal, you cannot with a straight face defend ignoring one law while upholding any other laws. All you can reasonably do then is cast your vote for a politician who thinks the same way.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Samus on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 8:15:26 AM , Rating: 3
Get over it. You liberals try to spin everything as being racist, when the facts we are disputing have to do with Federal law, taxation, and supporting people who don't pay into the system. The bottom line is you support people who break our laws, live off our tax system without paying income taxes, and won't even take the initiative to learn our language - but they'd rather us learn theirs.

This is not about race, this is about the American way of life and our principals that we are paying for. On that line, Samus, why don't you go get a job and stop living off my tax money.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Noya on 6/1/2009 6:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should FIT then dispense some of his 'murican-style vigilante justice and hand the guy a beat down while simultaneously deporting him in his cobalt ss?


LMAO


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 1
Hold on there man. My best friend is hispanic.


By SavagePotato on 6/1/2009 9:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
They're coming out of the goddamn walls!


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Bender 123 on 6/1/2009 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree FIT...Grew up in Milwaukee and it is bad. I now live in Central Wisconsin, Wausau area, and we are going through a recent murder here by an illegal. The scary thing is, he was arrested a year ago for assault and released, had his picture on the cover of the local newspaper, as a kitchen worker for a story on restaurant workers and had numerous other interactions and nobody did a thing.

Somebody, an 18 year old high school student, died, because our government couldn't enforce its own laws, out of fear of offending somebody.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By bubbastrangelove on 6/1/2009 4:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's frightening how unconcerned American Citizens are on illegal immigration. Jobs being taken (jobs American's WANT), schools and hospitals over run, crime...

The sovereignty our forefathers fought for is being pissed on by people who thumb their nose at our laws.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sviola on 6/1/2009 4:41:18 PM , Rating: 4
I find it amusing that a country built solely on immigration can have so many xenophobic and ignorant people when the subject is immigration.

Were your forefathers native americans? Or were they some english that had a religious grudge against their king and decided to sail away?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 6:41:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I find it amusing that a country built solely on immigration can have so many xenophobic and ignorant people when the subject is immigration.
I find it amusing that people from countries with MUCH tougher immigration laws have the nerve to pass judgment on us.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Regs on 6/1/2009 7:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
...weren't they also the ones who gave small pox infected blankets to the native Americans?

I know I might be a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest on this one, but this has to do a lot more about human sociology than politics - you have to admit. While we are at it, we can go about discussing Elis Island and how they changed peoples last names as they saw fit, sweat shops in NYC, and don't even get me started on slavery!


By SavagePotato on 6/1/2009 9:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
It would have been awesome if they sang i'm sailing away when they did too.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By blkwlf on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By blkwlf on 6/1/2009 5:29:02 PM , Rating: 1
I forgot to add... I only live an hour from Wausau, making this even more messed up!


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 5:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Look no further than your local city government. San Fransisco votes these kook's into office, and in turn, their residents have dealt with fathers, mothers, children, etc being killed by illegal aliens who are prior convicts and released back into the city becasue the liberals believe in amnesty and not following the federal law.

If you don't want to deal with it, vote those people out of office or move.

I won't say anything personally bad about anyone who comes here, or wants to come here....but if they do not do it legally, it is costing me money out of my tax dollars and I do not want to pay or support that. So no matter how nice, or what the situation, they need to be deported no ifs ands or buts.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Noya on 6/1/2009 6:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Try living in Oregon's Willamette Valley, I feel like I'm in Tijuana.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Very well put... but the US already spends more money on health care than any other nation.

Short of socializing health care, I'm sure that the country that put people on the moon half a century ago could hammer out some way to make the whole system acceptably efficient. The system is obviously broken right now, it needs to be fixed, but not socialized.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By HotFoot on 6/1/2009 12:48:25 PM , Rating: 5
It's an interesting point that the U.S. healthcare system costs so much more per capita than other countries of comperable standards of living. Personally, I blame the sue everyone for everything culture and lawers profiteering off the system.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 1:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The system is obviously broken right now, it needs to be fixed, but not socialized

Please tell me - what exactly is broken that needs to be fixed?

You want to know exactly how we can lower our health care costs?
1. Stop the entitlements. You are NOT entitled to healthcare, nor is it a "right" under the constitution, for someone else to pay your way.
2. If you are not a citizen, you do NOT get healthcare provided for you, PERIOD.
3. The hospital can turn down whoever they want. This way, the taxpayer is not footing the bill for the lady who goes to the ER once a day becuase shes a wackjob.
4. If you want to stop the increasing costs, then stop taxing the insurance companies. Plain and simple.
5. Anyone who uses the term "free healthcare" gets an X by their name and does not get provided with any coverage at all, unless they pay for it themselves like the rest of us.

and 6. if you dont like it, move to the UK where their healthcare system is going to bankrupt the nation while you wait 3 years for that yearly checkup.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 1
1. And how exactly do you propose we stop entitlements? I've paid into medicare all my life and I'd damn well better get something out of it.

2. Fair enough, we should be doing that anyway.

3. Idiotic. Hospitals already have internal policies in place to keep this kind of abuse from happening. And what happens when you go to the ER with a serious injury, and the ER charge nurse rejects you because she doesn't like teh cut of your jib?

4. Absolutely idiotic. Insurance is not a non-profit. They make money hand over fist, and should be taxed accordingly. Can I not pay taxes on my business just because I threaten to pass the expense along to my customers?

5. ???

6. citation needed.

--If you think the US health care system is fine and dandy, you either work for an insurance company, or your rich mommy and daddy pay your health insurance.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Sharpie on 6/1/2009 2:21:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you think the US health care system is fine and dandy, you either work for an insurance company, or your rich mommy and daddy pay your health insurance.


I especially get annoyed by these statements. You don't have to be rich to have good health care. I busted my rear end going to school to get a decent education, lived on student loans all of which I repaid when I found myself a good job that allowed me to do so as well as purchase my health coverage. Why do people want handouts?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I especially get annoyed by these statements. You don't have to be rich to have good health care.
This annoys me too. Everyone I work with has healthcare and not nearly any of us are anywhere near rich. Matter of fact, most people here have incomes right around the national average. if you want healthcare get a job that provides healthcare. Damn near every job outside of retail offers it. If a black man that lived in poverty for more than half his life raised by a single mother can do it, there is absolutely NO excuse for anyone else.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Just because XXX dollars are held out of your check each month by your employer (and likely matched by the employer), and you never see the money anyway, doesn't mean that you aren't paying out the ass for health insurance.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 3:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
doesn't mean that you aren't paying out the ass for health insurance.

Actually - I'm not paying out the ass my for my health insurance. I'm paying the following amounts every two weeks:

Medical (PPO): $27.84
Dental: $4.70
Vision: $3.45

The problem is that in addition to being responsible for my additional health care costs and copay, I'm also responsible for the costs of health care for those who are too lazy to get up off their asses and do something.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 5:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
That is how much YOU are paying from your paycheck. How much money is your company paying each month (on top of your pittance) to keep you insured?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 5:46:57 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, so what is your beef?

You want me to be mad that I applied myself through High School, paid for my own college with loans, got good grades, achieved in demand skills, got a good job, and have an in demand career which my employer pays the majority of my health care costs, they have a great retirement savings plan, and I get paid days off?

Wow, and I thought wanting those things is what creates MOTIVATION in our society to better yourself and live above the poverty line. Or didn't you people learn that yet?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 6:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ok, so what is your beef?

I have no beef... I just think that health care costs in the US are substantially higher than the health care costs in other countries. Do you disagree with this?
quote:
You want me to be mad that I applied myself through High School, paid for my own college with loans, got good grades, achieved in demand skills, got a good job, and have an in demand career which my employer pays the majority of my health care costs, they have a great retirement savings plan, and I get paid days off? Wow, and I thought wanting those things is what creates MOTIVATION in our society to better yourself and live above the poverty line. Or didn't you people learn that yet?

What the FSM are you going on about? You honestly think that I or anybody else gives a rats ass that you have achieved a modicum of success? You think that I want you to "be mad" that you applied yourself? WTF? Are you thieving meds from the hospital you work at?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 6:30:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you disagree with this?

Not really, no. Most people complain that drug costs are high...but what they dont think about is that we invent all the drugs. You know how much money it costs to do that? Good reason the costs are high. Sure, Canada and other countries take the pill, copy it, and sell knockoffs while putting in virtually no upfront research costs. If your a lazy shit, then everything is expensive. If you want to live like the UK and Canada, pay astronomical taxes and $8 gallon of gas, then be my guest....but I don't.
quote:
? You think that I want you to "be mad" that you applied yourself? WTF? Are you thieving meds from the hospital you work at?

Everything out of your mouth appears to be on the lines of wealth envy and equality. So yes, I think you won't be happy until everyone has to pay the same out of pocket for health care...or until you milk the rich for all they are worth so you don't have to pay anything.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 7:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is how much YOU are paying from your paycheck.
YOU said that WE were paying out the a$$ for healthcare. If my employer pays the majority, how am I paying out MY a$$ for it?


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 12:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
My wife is on a PPO personal Blue Cross Blue Shield Policy (non-group). She now pays $500/month for it, and it's coverage is much less than the BCBS group one I'm paying $350/month for (but not lasting because I'm paying it on COBRA, after having been laid off). What do I do when my COBRA runs out? I've pre-existing "things" so I'll likely be uninsured simply because the insurance companies won't sell me a policy. Insurance companies pick-and-choose to maximize profits.

The uninsured aren't just those who choose not to pay for insurance, it includes those who are laid off who would LIKE to keep paying for the COBRA plan they were on, but are cut off without the option of paying for insurance. And note I'm paying the FULL amount my former employer paid for my insurance plus a small percentage for the paperwork.

Note: Gov't is paying 2/3rds of my insurance payments for up to 9 months, which is very helpful. But I'd have preferred they extend COBRA (or getting the economy going so jobs open up and I not need COBRA health coverage). I had been employed for about 35 years total at a number of companies so it's not like I don't want to work.

Your $50/month is "nothing", it's 6% of what my wife and I together pay each month. And we're both unemployed at the moment. It probably being tax deductible is of no practical use. Likewise tax-credits would be of no use whatsoever.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 3:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
doesn't mean that you aren't paying out the ass for health insurance.
I don't care. Whatever amount is taken out still leaves me with more than enough. And I get a service for the money that's taken out. I have no problems with that and neither does anyone else that has employer provided healthcare. Can anyone in Canada or Europe call their healthcare provider and make an appointment to see their doctor (not A doctor, THEIR doctor) the same day? Like I said, if you want it, go get a job that provides it.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 4:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually - I'm not paying out the ass my for my health insurance. I'm paying the following amounts every two weeks:
My costs are about the same as yours.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By croc on 6/1/2009 8:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
In Australia, if I want to see my Doctor, I call MY Doctor. Not some wanky insurance company. He usually can work me in that day depending on his schedule, and how badly I need to see him. I try not to abuse this though, as he needs his family time also.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By superflex on 6/2/2009 3:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to bust your bubble but it's the same here in America.
I call the pediatrician when the kids are sick and they are in within 3-4 hours.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 3:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. And how exactly do you propose we stop entitlements? I've paid into medicare all my life and I'd damn well better get something out of it.

First, an entitlement is not an entitlement if you actually paid for it. Its only an entitlement when you get something for nothing, ala welfare. That is the whole purpose of national/universal healthcare. How do we stop? we just say "NO MORE". Buy your own.
quote:
3. Idiotic. Hospitals already have internal policies in place to keep this kind of abuse from happening.

Idiot, I work for a hospital. Policies do not take effect due to the worrying of lawsuits for discrimination.
quote:
Can I not pay taxes on my business just because I threaten to pass the expense along to my customers?

Ok - thats fair enough, but do NOT complain when your healthcare/insurance costs go up every year, right?
quote:
you either work for an insurance company, or your rich mommy and daddy pay your health insurance.

Nope - I'm 29 and work for a hospital - a non-profit hospital in fact. One of the top 10 children's hospitals in the entire nation.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sgw2n5 on 6/1/2009 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
So the administration of your hospital doesn't follow its own policies and guidelines for fear of being sued?

You're either a liar, or have the most incompetent and inept administration in any hospital ever.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/1/2009 3:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Guidelines are not rules. And policies are only in effect in certain scenarios.

However, the bottom line is, that hospitals will not turn people away - there is too much fear of lawsuits for discrimination from the ACLU, NAACP, etc, etc...and when the hospital systems are funded by stand and local grants and federal money, anything to stay out of the negative light is a good thing.

Perhaps you should go back and learn how things go hand in hand in business.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 12:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know if it's a State thing, but here when folk show up at an ER, the hospital is required to treat them without regard to ability to pay. There's no choice. Now the extent may be just to "stablize" things, and not a "full treatment", depending upon what it is, but some treatment is required by law.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Shmak on 6/2/2009 5:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here in NY a nurse friend of mine was telling a story about some disgusting bum that came into the ER. Most of her story was about the funny things this guy said, but she also said that they had to give him medication if he asked for it. That got my attention. Apparently they cannot refuse a medication request, even from homeless people who abuse the ER every week to get shelter, food, and drugs.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Keeir on 6/1/2009 3:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
Your arguing something plain stupid

Uninsured/Underinsured are indeed a plag on Health Care Coverage

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Ca...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emerg...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/cost-shift-uni...

The problem with Heath Care in the US is that we (the voters, the deciders, etc) have decided that everyone has the right to the highest medical care possible. There is no "correct" economic choices anymore. We are asked to feel sorry for the poor person who can't pay the 250,000 health care to extend his life... that was thier choice. Pocket the insurance money in a gamble to see if it pays off.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 12:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
When my COBRA period runs out (if it does... but the economy is still looking REALLY bad from my point of view), I would LIKE to keep paying the same insurance rates for the same insurance that I or my former employer had been paying for many years.

But I won't be allowed to.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Keeir on 6/2/2009 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry... I agree the system is not the best. But your attitude is part of the problem. In your mind you deserve to purchase Health Care at "X" price. Unfortunetely, thats not how things work... your not really entitled to purchase any kind of insurance at any kind of price.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
True, I can just die (I'm fighting Cancer). But I'd rather be bad attitude alive than dead. And I mean this literally.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, I can just die (I'm fighting Cancer). But I'd rather be bad attitude alive than dead. And I mean this literally.


On a personal level, I feel sorry for you and wish you the best.

But on a policy/economic level what your essentially doing is asking a company to take a loss on you, since you already have a costly medical disorder. Since your unlikely to repay that cost through your premiums (your don't want to pay more than original), you asking the other customers of the same insurance to foot your bill for you... because somehow you deserve? thier money/time.

Maybe a better solution would be a law forbiding the dropping of health care benifits inclusion for employees who when fired/laid off have reoccuring costly pre-existing medical conditions. Essentially "infinite" Cobra. That of course though will lead to raising of premiums for all people at a company, but that at least seems intristically more fair since most likely you were positive for many years through that previous health care coverage.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2009 5:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes (to your last paragraph), that's the whole point to the concept "insurance". That is, to spread risk/expenses among the masses. If insurance were only available to those who are healthy, what would be the point of it? I've had health insurance for something like half a century of which I didn't so much as take yearly physicals for a great portion of it (younger years obviously).


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By sabuus on 6/1/2009 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
As far as "free" healthcare goes, I live in quebec and I can say that even here we do not have free healthcare.

I pay ~600 annualy to the goveremnt for healcare costs (its a additional line on my tax returns)in addition to my private healthcare and i still pay a fair ammount for doctor visits.

Most basic health care costs are covered (checkups, required operations) but many non-doctor required costs occure. THings such a crutches, leg/arm braces ect. are not covered by the governent healthcare but are kept a relativly cheap price (25$ for a leg brace)

I beleive that essential medical costs can be effectivly covered by the government.

One smart move by the QUebec government was to lock in the prices of perscrption mediation (this was recently revoked). Many medication we're cheap enough for people to have access to it

Just my 2 cents


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 12:20:58 PM , Rating: 4
Can you at least spell Welfare right?

quote:
Where Taxpayers pay to make cars that they have to pay for.


Fixed it for you. ;)


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By 67STANG on 6/1/2009 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 4
No joke there. As you can probably tell by my user name.... not a huge fan of GM to begin with. Now, they are basically forcing me (and everyone else) to support a company that made its own bed.

It angers me every time I look at how much the govt. is skimming off of every check I get-- and knowing it goes to BS like this. I don't mind paying taxes, provided the money gets spent on something worthwhile.

Lets just make it clear. No company is "too big to fail". Certainly other businesses (small and medium) don't get this kind of hand holding and fail every day.

Shame on GM and Chrysler for taking our money-- then still cutting all the jobs that they said the money would save.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 2:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm not big fan of Ford but I will say that if I had to buy a brand new domestic tomorrow, it'd be a Ford now. I won't buy a car from Government Motors.

I'd love to see that Stang of yours though. I love the old ones. Hate the new ones. Just got my GTO tuned yesterday though. 381 rwhp and 377 rwtq.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 2:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hate the new ones. Just got my GTO tuned yesterday though. 381 rwhp and 377 rwtq.
I would love about 350whp in my Solstice and I could have it but there is some sort of fuel issue at the higher rpms that hasn't been resolved yet and I have no desire to drive on the ragged edge of the fuel system.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2009 3:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
350 whp in the Solstice would be nice with how light they are.

Just too small for me to be a daily driver. Would make a nice weekend car though. A lady here at work had one and got rid of it in a few months because she didn't even have room really to bring the stuff she needed for work. It was a GXP too.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By Spuke on 6/1/2009 4:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lady here at work had one and got rid of it in a few months because she didn't even have room really to bring the stuff she needed for work.
Yeah, there isn't room for much but I only carry my air pressure gauge, umbrella, and sun shade. And a couple of hats. I've done weekend vacations in it but you really have to pack light. Some people have done cross country drives in theirs. I wouldn't do that. BTW, I daily drive mine but I'm in the VAST minority of owners that do. 50k miles and counting.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By 67STANG on 6/1/2009 8:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hated the new Fords until a couple of years ago. Now the quality is slightly higher. Not sure if that will be enough to catch my next vehicle purchase, as I'm looking at the BMW 335 as well...

I keep my 67 Mustang in the garage if you're in the neighborhood FIT. Dyno-tuned to 473rwhp and 437rwtq last fall. =) Honestly, I'd straight trade for a GTO any day though, from a collector's stand point-- especially for a 389 tri-power.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By spkay on 6/1/2009 9:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is what the idiots voted for and they got just what they asked for. A communist revolution in America not being even questioned or reported on by our communist media. Fannie and Freddie led us down this path - blazed by the left in the name of "expanded economic opportunity" to those unfortunate urban areas being unfairly targeted by "redlining". And wimpy Republicans didn't work too hard to stop the bogus lending either - since too many well-heeled contributors could make a buck during the lending spree. Every single one of these business, all the financials, all the manufacturers, Fannie/Freddie should all be allowed to fall to the bottom of the heap where they belong. And right along with them should be every single incumbent politician who sat by and watched it all happen without providing any warning or worst-case scenario contigency plan.

Find any and every tax break avilable and use to the fullest extent possible.


RE: Weclome to Welfare Motors
By superflex on 6/2/2009 3:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the UAW which helped lead GM down the toilet.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki