APP - An Incoherent Truth

[DamnYankee]

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.

GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

 

[ib1yysguy]

GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

I'm sure it had nothing to do with legacy costs and poor management/product development.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

Calling labor unions socialist is... hyperbole.

There is shared responsibility in the GM catastrophe. I do not think that UAW was the primary contributor to the bankruptcy, although clearly the high wages they demanded contributed to it. But the company could have survived anyway had they not failed so hard at competing in general. The wages didn't take as much competitiveness away from GM as most people think - the executives probably made half or more of the total wages in the company anyway. :-/

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with legacy costs and poor management/product development.

The huge legacy costs were due to the UAW pensions and benefits programs.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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

I don't really think it's much of a possibility for most Americans. :-/

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.

Obama's plan isn't really even all the way out yet.

i've posted plans i do like, however, as the dems are in power i see that plan passing.

Which one is that?

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....

Yep. Under the current situation, health care costs are going to double in the next ten years. That's 30% of our money being sunk into healthcare. That's as big a cost as taxes, for christ sake.

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.....

Obama's not in a cave cackling about how he's going to ruin American healthcare. I assure you - he wants this to work. Even if you refuse to consider that this is just because he's such a good guy, he definitely has a personal stake in this, because if it doesn't control costs he's going to lose in 2012.

There's a tendency amongst the partisans to unreasonably demonize the leader of the opposition. I know - I did this with Bush as well. But it's not really reality. Obama has economists and engineers working on this, trying to figure out a good way to both provide for everyone and keep costs under control. I'd just like it if you took a deeper look at his plan when it comes out, and look at the facts of the situation, and think about if you and your family are going to be better off under it, rather than just giving in to an emotional reaction and rejecting it outright.

Right now, there are like five different plans being worked up. So I really can't give you specifics yet on whether or not it will add to the deficit and how it will control costs. You say you're opposed to Obama's plan - but there isn't one right now.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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?

oh please.....do tell how bush did the biggest executive power grab in history....

since no one has a bright line rule or idea about it, how in the world can you call it the biggest grab....grab from what? there is not a set theory on it

 

[ib1yysguy]

oh please.....do tell how bush did the biggest executive power grab in history....

since no one has a bright line rule or idea about it, how in the world can you call it the biggest grab....grab from what? there is not a set theory on it

Yes there is. It's called the unitary executive, and it was Cheney's entire purpose for being in government. And it worked, somewhat. Read up on it.

 

[DamnYankee]

Calling labor unions socialist is... hyperbole.

There is shared responsibility in the GM catastrophe. I do not think that UAW was the primary contributor to the bankruptcy, although clearly the high wages they demanded contributed to it. But the company could have survived anyway had they not failed so hard at competing in general. The wages didn't take as much competitiveness away from GM as most people think - the executives probably made half or more of the total wages in the company anyway. :-/

Can you back this up?

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=Watermark;481897]I don't really think it's much of a possibility for most Americans. :-/

my point still stands...you can choose not to drive and not pay insurance...further, i don't want to compare the two....having to pay car insurance is a far cry from obama's plan

Obama's plan isn't really even all the way out yet.

then what is he doing running around the country banging away with the bully pulpit telling people that have to get the legislation passed before the summer recess?

Which one is that?

many ideas from a link i gave in another thread. another thought might be to fix the current system of medicare we have...if insurers enjoy certain benefits from regulation that are not good for the country, then change that...we do not need to create new laws and new bills everytime something goes wrong....and that is all obama has done since taking office

Yep. Under the current situation, health care costs are going to double in the next ten years. That's 30% of our money being sunk into healthcare. That's as big a cost as taxes, for christ sake.

ok, i've seen some private ideas (non government) that are currently reducing costs...walmart, safeway...

Obama's not in a cave cackling about how he's going to ruin American healthcare. I assure you - he wants this to work. Even if you refuse to consider that this is just because he's such a good guy, he definitely has a personal stake in this, because if it doesn't control costs he's going to lose in 2012.

yeah....how good did chrysler and gm workout?

There's a tendency amongst the partisans to unreasonably demonize the leader of the opposition. I know - I did this with Bush as well. But it's not really reality. Obama has economists and engineers working on this, trying to figure out a good way to both provide for everyone and keep costs under control. I'd just like it if you took a deeper look at his plan when it comes out, and look at the facts of the situation, and think about if you and your family are going to be better off under it, rather than just giving in to an emotional reaction and rejecting it outright.

i've given the man props when he deserves, marijuana for one...i don't demonize him, i don't trust him and i don't like his grab for power over citizens using the government....he weaseled his way around the "spread the wealth" comment, yet he just made nearly the same comment a month ago or so....

Right now, there are like five different plans being worked up. So I really can't give you specifics yet on whether or not it will add to the deficit and how it will control costs. You say you're opposed to Obama's plan - but there isn't one right now.

see supra

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes there is. It's called the unitary executive, and it was Cheney's entire purpose for being in government. And it worked, somewhat. Read up on it.

dude....you brought it up, why don't YOU explain how...i know what it is and i think you're wrong....and there is no set theory on it being a big power grab as you would like to claim...did you read about it....

 

[ib1yysguy]

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory[/ame]

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

 

[WinterBorn]

GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

They went into bankrupcy because of the redundancy of their products and their inability to adapt to new wants from consumers.

The UAW was part of the problem as well. But I said that in my original post on this topic.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....

 

[ib1yysguy]

hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....

Crazy. So Regan was part of this power grab as well! That sure proves me wrong, doesn't it?

The point, child, is that you can't complain about power grabs when you fetishize Reagan and voted for the Bush administration twice.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

why are in this forum....all you're doing is your same childish shit...

you didn't prove your point...all you did was show that i was right...that is, according to wiki....it has been argued and debated over for a couple of hundred years....like i said...no one has a solid theory and how much is a power grab you self masterbating pwner

edit: and you still have not shown how bush was responsible for the biggest power grab in history....dude, you just majorly self pwned yourself....IDIOT

 

[Cancel7]

It's a hyperbolic disphemism.



Nope, not really, IB1's not doing this forum much good either.

Actually that was me, not ib. I didn't realize what forum I was in. These f'ing forum things with different rules are going to screw me up. I'll be banned nearly as fast as asshat. (though you'll never see me go crawling to Damo begging and squirming beneath his feet to be let back in).

I use the "today's posts" feature and I never have any freaking idea of which forum I'm in, nor care. I'll try to pay more attention now that this creeping facism has been installed by the neohide Grind.

 

[Minister of Truth]

BAN GRIND!!

 

[belme1201]

hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....

Iran/Contra was a case of the President lying to his people and Congress. Reagan traded weapons for cash with a nation he campaigned upon as being our enemy and lied about it, later admitting only to "forgetting". Hardly the actions of a great man. Power was merely a part of it, lying, arrogance, and a touch of psychopathy being more dominant.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Iran/Contra was a case of the President lying to his people and Congress. Reagan traded weapons for cash with a nation he campaigned upon as being our enemy and lied about it, later admitting only to "forgetting". Hardly the actions of a great man. Power was merely a part of it, lying, arrogance, and a touch of psychopathy being more dominant.

or a case of Congress trying to prevent the president from taking action to protect the country in the manner he saw fit.....if Tipper hadn't been so hellbent on sucking up to the communists, none of it would have happened.....