Originally Posted by apple0154 GM can make a comeback so why should the government just let the factory go to waste and all the people lose jobs along with the spin-off jobs?
because it wasn't done to let GM make a comeback....it was done to preserve union pensions.....which is what killed the company in the first place....
Reminds me of a sign I saw in an office. "If you don't believe the dead come back to life you should be here at quitting time." 
I know what you mean though. It's a b!tch when people keep living after a company feels it's worked the poor sucker to his grave.
Why shouldn't the government be involved in insurance and banking and building cars?
because it's a government, not a business?.....
If the government can provide a service that the business folks can't then to hell with the business folks.What I don't understand about your way of thinking is why are you more concerned if someone can make money than with providing a service to the people? Why should private enterprise have the exclusive right to make money?
Another thing that's bizarre is people not trusting the government. The government decides on wars. The government has it's finger on the nuclear button but we don't trust them with our health?
do you trust them to be efficient?.....
Absolutely. If the governments of France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Sweden and a dozen other countries can manage a medical plan surely the US government can.
Why would we trust a guy (company), whose only reason for being there is to make money, to build cars but we don't trust a politician (government) to build cars?
because the purpose behind making cars is to make money....
So let the government make money making cars and use the money for other things. Or sell the cars at cost.
Now there's a political platform! People always ranting about the price of gas. Let a politician run on the idea the government will make a few automobile models (give the people a choice) and sell the cars at cost. Parts, at cost. Service, at cost. Unless someone wants a special car and is willing to pay $500 for an alternator then, fine, as long as they don't complain about the cost of gas.
Where does this innate belief that a capitalist, interested strictly in his/her own welfare, is more trustworthy than a government interested in promoting the welfare of all? Of course, that really isn't the issue.
you're right....trustworthiness is not the issue....efficiency is.....any company as inefficient as the government would have been bankrupt long ago......that is, unless they got the government to bail them out....
Again, we see governments all over the world running medical services at 1/2 cost compared to the US so your argument doesn't hold water.
That's how it's framed but the reality is certain people want to make the money so they question government's efficiency. Just like the medical debate. The government is quite capable of running a medical program. Dozens of governments do and their citizens are quite satisfied but those who want to make money off the misery of others try to instill in the minds of those others that government is inefficient, can't be trusted, devious.
ah, that's why Medicare has no financial responsibilities that it cannot meet, right?.....
Everything is budgeted for. The government arbitrarily sets a budget. We see the same thing in countries with universal medical. They all b!tch and complain about going over budget, however, their budget is 1/2 of what the US spends. Half. Of course they're going to go over budget and they'll keep going over budget until they budget more.
If the budget for Medicare is reasonable and it still goes over budget that's all the more reason to adopt one of the universal plans already in effect in another country. Maybe it's time to look at how they do it instead of people saying it can't be done.
It can be done. Dozens of other countries are doing it at a little over 1/2 price. The citizens in all those diverse countries prefer their plan to the "pay or suffer" plan.
What are people having difficulty grasping?
