APP - An Incoherent Truth

Ice Dancer said:
Obama to Government Motors: "Let's Roll"

"The last remnants of the American free-market system are experiencing a quick death by strangulation. Perhaps the most disturbing casualties of government intervention are General Motors and Chrysler, two disgraced automakers that have gone from private ownership to the public trough virtually overnight. The US government has effectively grabbed a financial stake in each company while attempting to control the reorganization process without any constitutional authority to commence such actions."

"The takeovers, which have occurred at breakneck speed, are alarming. A defining characteristic of economic fascism is the control of private property and business through a government-business "partnership." This public-private alliance, while permitting private business ownership, is an arrangement that allows government to control and plan private industry. What we are experiencing from the schemers in Washington, DC is a planned capitalism, or soft fascism, that is being rolled out at an unprecedented pace."
Click to expand...

Ice Dancer, Chrysler and GM were not nationalized. You know as well as I do that this is hyperbolic misinformation.
 
Watermark said:
Ice Dancer, Chrysler and GM were not nationalized. You know as well as I do that this is hyperbolic misinformation.
Click to expand...

As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unaabted that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.

"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization. In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."
 
Yurt said:
so what are they, capitalist? isn't this really just rebranding ideologies....
Click to expand...

Socialism was a philosophy that advocated taking control of the means of production and giving it to workers. When the Socialist parties got into power they generally said "Well, gee golly gosh, this really isn't going to work as well as we planned" and didn't implement their radical programs. I can't think of a single democratic country where a socialist party took control that seized all private property. Not even on-paper marxists like Allendelle. At most they would perform nationalizations of a few key industries, which would then get privatized again by the eighties. They would move the goal posts and say that it was only about seizing important industries, but I'm like, what's the point of that? How does that gel with the distribution of goods to the workers philosophy at all? It was a pretty clear betrayal of their philosophy.

Now socialist parties around the world don't even use socialist rhetoric. They don't do nationalizations, they just govern a bit more left wing. Those that do actual socialism usually garner fractions of 1% of the vote. The ideology is dead.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An Incoherent Truth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 26, 2009

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.
Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.
Click to expand...

absolutely wrong....why should the government stick its nose into our private medical lives? force me to get health insurance....what if i can't afford it? at least with a car you have the choice not to drive a car, but his, this is taking away freedom.

and it is an absolute lie that if you're rejected you can't get insurance...they have insurance for people with known health issues, it just costs more....

now, with my less government speeeeeel out of the way...

i have personally dealt with the current situation and have bitched because a family member got rejected with blue shield because of some lame thyroid issue that she had to get a whole slew of fucking tests to show she didn't have a problem but now we have to wait another 6 effing months to see if the non problem is still there....

but, she can get insurance, instead of 150/mo....it is 550/mo

fair...i don't think so and unfortunately there is no place else for her to get insurance....i am not sure though it is the government's responsibility to take this over....need i say

usps
dmv
vets
 
Watermark said:
Socialism was a philosophy that advocated taking control of the means of production and giving it to workers. When the Socialist parties got into power they generally said "Well, gee golly gosh, this really isn't going to work as well as we planned" and didn't implement their radical programs. I can't think of a single democratic country where a socialist party took control that seized all private property. Not even on-paper marxists like Allendelle. At most they would perform nationalizations of a few key industries, which would then get privatized again by the eighties.

Now socialist parties around the world don't even use socialist rhetoric. They don't do nationalizations, they just govern a bit more left wing. Those that do actual socialism usually garner fractions of 1% of the vote. The ideology is dead.
Click to expand...

chavez.....

so what would you call this new ideology?
 
Ice Dancer said:
As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unabated that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.
Click to expand...

Again, this is nothing but hyperbole.

Ice Dancer said:
"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization.
Click to expand...

The government isn't exercising voting powers and intends to sell of their stake when everything is over. It does not "amount" to "absolute nationalization". That is, again, nothing but hyperbole.

Ice Dancer said:
In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."
Click to expand...

During the 1980's bailout of Chrysler (Reagan's bailout), they also used significant steps to trim the company to make it more competitive again also.
 
Yurt said:
chavez.....

so what would you call this new ideology?
Click to expand...

Yeah Chavez is certainly the closest to an actual socialist there is out there, and he's wrecking his nations economy.

But, for instance, the Labour party of Britain blatantly labels itself a "democratic socialist" party, which is almost absurd.
 
The government did not actually sieze control of GM. GM, through decades of mismanagement and high labor costs, found themselves on the brink of going under.

They went to the government for help and some astronomical amounts of money. The government put some harsh stipulations on the bailout.

GM gave their production to the government.

And GM is only a tiny part of our national production.
 
Yurt said:
absolutely wrong....why should the government stick its nose into our private medical lives?
Click to expand...

In the way of forcing you to get health insurance, yes. It's so that you can't game the system at the expense of society. If you get sick, we pretty much have a moral responsibility to take care of you no matter what, and it's not fair to the rest of us if you paid far less but get treated anyway. It's sort of the same reason car insurance is mandatory.

Yurt said:
force me to get health insurance....what if i can't afford it?
Click to expand...

Then the government subsidizes your plan. Everyone gets healthcare.

Yurt said:
at least with a car you have the choice not to drive a car, but his, this is taking away freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because it's totally possible to live a normal life in modern America without a ca. What a reasonable condition on having a freedom.


Yurt said:
and it is an absolute lie that if you're rejected you can't get insurance...they have insurance for people with known health issues, it just costs more....
Click to expand...

That costs a ridiculous amount of money and isn't worth buying.


Yurt said:
now, with my less government speeeeeel out of the way...
Click to expand...

What?

Yurt said:
i have personally dealt with the current situation and have bitched because a family member got rejected with blue shield because of some lame thyroid issue that she had to get a whole slew of fucking tests to show she didn't have a problem but now we have to wait another 6 effing months to see if the non problem is still there....
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a tragedy man.


Yurt said:
but, she can get insurance, instead of 150/mo....it is 550/mo
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's completely and totally unaffordable for most people.


Yurt said:
fair...i don't think so and unfortunately there is no place else for her to get insurance....
Click to expand...

Are you arguing against health insurance reform with this story?
 
Watermark said:
In the way of forcing you to get health insurance, yes. It's so that you can't game the system at the expense of society. If you get sick, we pretty much have a moral responsibility to take care of you no matter what, and it's not fair to the rest of us if you paid far less but get treated anyway. It's sort of the same reason car insurance is mandatory.



Then the government subsidizes your plan. Everyone gets healthcare.



Yeah, because it's totally possible to live a normal life in modern America without a ca. What a reasonable condition on having a freedom.




That costs a ridiculous amount of money and isn't worth buying.




What?



Yeah, that's a tragedy man.




Yeah, that's completely and totally unaffordable for most people.




Are you arguing against health insurance reform with this story?
Click to expand...

i know a few people who get around with a car, all their choice....it is not impossible

it is not that i'm arguing against or for health insurance reform, because it is nto working well the way it is....i just do not believe in obama's plan. i've posted plans i do like, however, as the dems are in power i see that plan passing. hopefully it works out for the best if does, because if it makes it cheaper and more affordable to get health insurance and see the doctor, then i'm for it....i just don't trust obama's power grabs with the government and i see this as more of a power grab than true reform.....
 
You realize, yurt, do you not, that the biggest executive power grab in American history happened under Bush right? Do you know anything about the theory of the unitary executive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top