By on July 15, 2008

Gooooood morning Janesville! (courtesy my.barackobama.com)Does that include big-ass tax credits for Chevy's plug-in hybrid electric – gas Volt? Federal loan guarantees? I'm thinking… yes. But Barack ain't saying nothin'– other than it's all the republicans' fault, vote for me and I'll sort this shit out. As Reuters reports, "Democratic Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama said today that the job cuts at General Motors Corp. were 'a sober reminder of the difficult economic times we're facing,' and said the U.S. auto industry was facing a 'perfect storm' of trouble." Yes, "when a mainstay of the American economy is forced to make a restructuring decision like the one General Motors is announcing today, it is a sober reminder of the difficult economic times we're facing and of why we need change and a new direction in Washington." Uh, did I miss something? What restructuring? Anyway, "My heart goes out to all the workers and families in Michigan and across the country who will be affected as well as those who have been impacted over the last few months and years of turbulence in the auto industry." FYI McCain has come out against a federal bailout for Detroit. Barack… isn't so sure. 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

55 Comments on “Bailout Watch 5: Obama– “GM would thrive under the right policies”...”


  • avatar
    Samir

    The problem is, those policies have to come from GM management – not the US gov.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Aw, why not? After all, there’s plenty of “bank bailouts” in the works, and it can’t be said that the banks screwed up any less then GM!

  • avatar

    Trimming back a bit on corporate (mis)management goodies is hardly restructuring. Hmm…wonder how much “change” we’ll see when he hits the White House?

    John

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Samir Says:
    July 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
    The problem is, those policies have to come from GM management – not the US gov.

    +1

  • avatar

    I’m sure he sprinkled the words “Hope” and “Change” somewhere in his speech today.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    Later when the media pointed out that GM continued to sell large trucks and SUV’s and any governement funding would likely allow them to produce even more Barack said, ‘I never really meant that my heart goes out to employees of GM, and if you look closely at my words you’ll realize that I didn’t really say that. This is not the GM I thought I knew!’

  • avatar
    fisher72

    Mushrooms thrive under the right conditions also.

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    GM would thrive under the right MANAGEMENT.

    It’s not as if the engineers they have are rubbish, is it….?

  • avatar
    Cicero

    If Obama is elected, the oceans will recede, making more dry land. This should help GM since cars need dry land.

    Yeah, that works.

  • avatar
    Alex Rodriguez

    But I thought Barack “HopenChange” Obama was supposed to be a different type of politician? Sure sounds like the same ole politican to me, except this one has zero experience and has a REALLY shady set of buddies.

    Yet he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the POTUS. Should tell you about the state of our country.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    He is talking about the magical panacea of universal healthcare and socialized government control of the marketplace. After all, the soviet domestics did very well behind the iron curtain.

    Of course, he can’t tell us his solution. Too many of his supporters would run for the exits.

  • avatar

    Did the speech start with:
    ‘I have a dream…’?

  • avatar
    50merc

    driving course asked “Did the speech start with:
    ‘I have a dream…’?”

    No, but Obama did promise there’ll be a Pontiac in every pot.

    Obama seeks votes by letting people think he’d help save the 2.8, while McCain flatly rules out a federal bailout. Reminds me of my long-ago colleague in the poli sci department who liked to observe “The Republicans: right in principle, wrong in practice.”

  • avatar
    Bunter1

    “Loogk boss, duh plane, duh plane! Yes, welcome to (Obama’s) fantasy island”

    If a ship has been sinking for 3 decades it might not be do to the current market conditions Barak.

    Just a thought,

    Bunter

  • avatar
    jaje

    Any company – no matter how large – will go down when management does not properly prepare for the future. Think IBM and now GM. The “perfect storm” is not the cause of GM’s downfall – it was that they were not ready for it at all!

  • avatar
    JoeEgo

    Too many of his supporters would run for the exits.

    There’s the problem: too many of his supporters are so in love he can do no wrong. Any of his recent ‘adjustments’ on issues are because he is being pragmatic about winning the election while the supporters delude themselves with visions of Obama’s winks and nods in their direction.

  • avatar
    Orian

    Well, Obama has more political experience at the Federal level than W. had prior to his election otherwise he would have had the same criticisms leveled at him regarding votes on bills. Just sayin’.

    In any case, the bailout of the banks sets a precedent – chances are good that if GM doesn’t go bankrupt before the election is decided they will get bailed out by whichever candidate’s cabinet gets elected. Or by the current one if it does happen this year.

    As for Obama’s “shady” partners, have you looked int he McCain camp lately? Both sides are pretty much even if you ask me.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Oh well, I think that after 8 years of an adminstration that’s doing such a bang-up job on the war, the economy, and the federal deficit, I think Barack would be a breath of fresh air.
    Just sayin’

  • avatar
    Kevin

    He’s absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was just about to buy everyone in Iraq a new Chevy Tahoe. And the Taliban, there were going to start stoning loose women who showed off their ankles by throwing Aveos at them.

  • avatar
    Matthew Potena

    More proof that politicians really don’t think we listen to what they say, just to what we want to hear.

  • avatar
    John The Accountant

    Mr. Obama:

    ANY company would thrive under the right policies. When you have poor decision making and even poorer management, job cutting like this has to happen.

    John McCain is 100% right not to give GM any sort of bailout. What kind of message are we sending by doing these bailouts of mortgages, banks, mortgaging companies, etc.? It definitely isn’t a good one!

  • avatar
    Gleetroit

    Not to run too much to the defense of W, but he did hold an executive office before winning the White House. Obama is a junior senator with very little record on anything. In fact his voting of “present” on more bills than any other senator in congress during his short stint there would seem to indicate that he’s been running for POTUS since he got elected in ’04. Also, you’ll recall that most presidents come from the ranks of Governers and Generals. The fact that he’s in Federal Government has little to do with anything.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    There are no limits to the supernatural abilities of Barack Obama, it seems.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    The problem is, those policies have to come from GM management – not the US gov.

    +2

    Yet he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the POTUS. Should tell you about the state of our country.

    But it gets even worse, the other guy who has a 50/50 chance will keep us at war, probably escalating in Afghanistan, and doesn’t know anything about economics (by his own admission) That really tells you something about the state of the nation.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Shaker,

    Please give examples of Barak’s track record of success at anything. Has he run a business and met payroll? Has he managed a house full of teenagers? What has been his most significant success in business? Where has he been a leader? Has he rehab’d parts of the South side of Chicago?

    He has written two books full of other people’s opinions.

    He’s a great speaker. What else is he good at?

    His support for a tax payer funded bailout shows he cares more for failed companies than successful households.

  • avatar
    geeber

    Orian: As for Obama’s “shady” partners, have you looked int he McCain camp lately? Both sides are pretty much even if you ask me.

    Only problem is that Senator Obama has been running as the “reform” candidate, who will bring about massive changes to the way Washington, D.C., operates, primarily because he never lowered himself to this sort of practice.

    In the great scheme of things, what he has done isn’t especially terrible for a U.S. senator, but because of the lofty expectations set up by himself and his supporters, they look bad. Even worse, these revelations grind the luster off his image, and right now, image is mainly what he has to offer.

    And, realistically, nationalized health care isn’t going to save GM. It certainly didn’t save British Leyland.

  • avatar

    I got your sound policies…right here!

    1)Get Tier2bin5 emissions backed down slightly to Euro5. This is a slight NOx increase and would allow light-duty diesel vehicles virtually immediately.

    2)Strict emissions with the low-grade 40(maybe) cetane fuel is asinine. Upgrade this countries diesel asap.

    3)Adopt or at least start the phase-in of the metric system. I am so Fing sick of converting decimals to fractions to millimeters and trying to make foreign shit work with dumass american supplies that are just off. Try to teach people who know the metric system this dumass system is a waste of time. Teaching our future scientists and engineers this system is a waste of time. Making and shipping all this US-spec crap all over the place is a waste of time, energy.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Obama says he has visited 57 states in the last year with some still to go. McCain has only visited 50 or less states. How can a guy run for President when he doesn’t know how many states there are? Is that what they teach in the US public schools?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

  • avatar
    cleek

    “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

    “Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.”

    -Ronald Reagan

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Yet he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the POTUS. Should tell you about the state of our country.

    The fact that I and apparently a growing number of other voters feel more like we’re voting against somebody rather than for somebody should tell you about the state of this country’s leadership.

  • avatar

    To those who are trashing Obama with lack of experience: Lincoln had been a one term congressman and a lawyer when he became president.

    I’m not saying that Obama is a Lincoln. I’m not particularly excited about him (and I find the religious-like fervor on the part of some supporters to be a bit frightening), but between energy policy, Iraq and the Supreme Court, the alternative truly scares me.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Only problem is that Senator Obama has been running as the “reform” candidate, who will bring about massive changes to the way Washington, D.C., operates, primarily because he never lowered himself to this sort of practice.

    Call me Mr. Disillusioned, but hasn’t McCain been touting a similar message himslef for about 12 years now, campaign finance reform beign his crowning jewel? When you have a massive turnover in the House of Representatives and still nothing changes, it makes me wonder if the impetus of our governmetn and country isn’t too great to change our course. The Republicans say one thing, the Democrats spout another, but in the end I think we always get what both sides really wanted in the beginning, more government handouts for their district.

  • avatar
    CarShark

    @bluecon:

    He’s looking to the future, and her name is Mexamerada. That’s U.S., Mexico, Puerto Rico and the five most socialist Canadian provinces, which I realize is like finding the greenest blade of grass. In the end, they’re all the same.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Obama + Dem House + Dem Senate = Christmas for the UAW. Not a lock, but way more than 50% probability.

    Also look for “card check” to be quickly implemented in place of elections leading to quick unionization of most transplants.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Lumbergh21: “in the end I think we always get what both sides really wanted in the beginning, more government handouts for their district.”

    indi500fan: “Obama + Dem House + Dem Senate = Christmas for the UAW. Not a lock, but way more than 50% probability. Also look for “card check” to be quickly implemented in place of elections leading to quick unionization of most transplants.”

    I think these are safest two predictions for domestic policy under an Obama administration.

  • avatar
    carlos.negros

    Landcrusher gushes: “He is talking about the magical panacea of universal healthcare and socialized government control of the marketplace. After all, the soviet domestics did very well behind the iron curtain.”

    Let’s see how our “free market” is doing today.
    1) Bear Stearns bailout: $32 bil
    2) Ethanol, sugar, cotton, corn subsidies
    3) $19 Bil in lease forgiveness to big oil

    Sounds like socialism for corporations and capitalism for everybody else.

    Instead of “socialized control of the marketplace” lets have Enron run the market!

  • avatar
    faster_than_rabbit

    Gleetroit:
    In fact his voting of “present” on more bills than any other senator in congress during his short stint there

    You’re confusing your right-wing talking points. There isn’t a “present” vote classification in the US Senate. The “present” thing happened in Illinois, and it has to do with the way the state political body operates. It’s strictly pro forma, similar to the way the US Senate Majority Leader must switch his vote to No on legislation he actually supports if he wants to bring up the legislation for consideration at a different time.

    jkross22:

    Please give examples of Barak’s track record of success at anything. Has he run a business and met payroll? Has he managed a house full of teenagers? What has been his most significant success in business? Where has he been a leader? Has he rehab’d parts of the South side of Chicago?

    He won election to the US Senate. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was the most difficult thing imaginable in the Democratic primary. Even his supporters thought he’d be VP, at best. He’s beating McCain in the polls. Show me where McCain is more successful by your terms. For that matter, show me where St. Reagan did any of those things.

    And then explain to me why any of it matters. We’re talking about the presidency of the United States. W had ‘executive experience’. This seems to have helped him how? He basically destroyed the entire free world and shredded whole sections of the Constitution — you can blame spineless Dems all you want for the FISA debacle — I personally do — but it’s the Bush Administration’s law. Bush and his so-called national security apparatus insisted on it.

    Meanwhile, John McCain doesn’t even bother to show up for work most of the time. This includes some bills where his vote could have changed the outcome.

    I also note that you haven’t read Obamas books, or you would not be able to so casually dismiss them. People like to denigrate Obama on the basis that he’s merely an empty head who speaks well. I think such people are simply projecting their remembrance of Reagan.

    geeber:
    And, realistically, nationalized health care isn’t going to save GM. It certainly didn’t save British Leyland.

    Since nationalized health care existed in Britain prior to the formation of British Leyland, that is utterly irrelevant to the present situation. The health care obligations of American Leyland are real, large, and problematic. They are not going to be saved by universal healthcare alone, but it could help them (and, in fact, most businesses) in a big way. (Taking away “lack of decent healthcare” as a reason not to join a company would be a tremendous boost for small businesses looking for quality employees, but I digress.)

    Please note: I support letting American Leyland live or die on it’s own merit (bye GM and Chrysler!), and I don’t support Obama’s position in this case.

  • avatar
    willbodine

    It astounds me that anyone will seriously try to defend the status quo of the American health care “system.” We spend 15% of our GDP on it (the next highest is Germany at 9%) and 48 million people aren’t even covered. Neither of the candidates will go far enough in my opinion. What we need is single payer health insurance for EVERY American. To provide less is shameful. And yes, the health and legacy costs born by US manufacturers are a distinct disadvantage compared to our foreign competitors who don’t have to provide health insurance. How could it not be?

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    1. I don’t think universal healthcare will save GM either. I didn’t say so. I believe Obama believes that. (btw, I would rather vote for someone admittedly ignorant on economics than someone who believes in scarcity and controlling the economy. To my knowledge, neither man has ever run a reasonable sized business for profit, so neither one actually knows a thing about economics.)

    2. We have one of the most free markets in the world, but it is over regulated. As was pointed out, even today we have examples of how government interference ruins things. Enron would be a perfect example of that.

  • avatar
    DearS

    Ok folks do not like government handouts. I’ve not seen enough to care too much.

    So what is so bad about a bailout? I mean is this an issue the needs a lot of attention? Is it not a good idea to observe and learn from, while being somewhat light about it? Is it something pressing, that is really detrimental to our well being? Is this not really just the tip of the iceberg? Is it not more important to look at the iceberg as a whole?

  • avatar
    KBW

    1. I don’t think universal healthcare will save GM either. I didn’t say so. I believe Obama believes that. (btw, I would rather vote for someone admittedly ignorant on economics than someone who believes in scarcity and controlling the economy. To my knowledge, neither man has ever run a reasonable sized business for profit, so neither one actually knows a thing about economics.)

    GM’s healthcare load per car is estimated to be ~$1500 per car. That’s larger than the profit margin on some small cars. Being able to make money on smaller cars is huge in today’s economy. It might not save GM, but it would certainly help.

    BTW, economics is by definition the study of the allocation of scarce resources. http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-economics.html
    To say that believing in scarcity is bad when it comes to economics is laughably ignorant.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    To believe that a government agency and 99% of the people who populate it are better determiners of how scarce resources should be allocated is even more laughable and more ignorant. Try visiting just about any government agency. Try getting a permit to build a home or operate a business, and you should get a taste of just how efficient and fair the government can be.

  • avatar
    hltguy

    Does this moron Obama have a clue as to how bad things are getting in the U.S., he should check and learn that foreign governments such as Russia and China hold a great deal of the debt of the Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, annd lots of other U.S.debt, those countries (not exactly our friends) could bring the U.S. to its knees if they called the debt, the amount of taxpayer dollars that is being spent to keep the sinking ship afloat is startling. The problems at GM are going to get far worse because the economy is not going to turn around anytime soon, and any politician who thinks they should prop up a failing corporation like GM should immediately be publicly flogged.

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    Is this the thread where McCain supporters attack Obama for stupid reasons and Obama supporters attack McCain for stupid reasons? Just wondering.

  • avatar
    shaker

    And FOUR MORE MONTHS to go…

  • avatar
    M20E30

    “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

    “Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.”

    -Ronald Reagan

    YAY FOR ROCKIN’ RONNY.

    “Lets borrow a bunch of money from everybody. Absolutley Nothing Bad will happen.”

    “Privatizing Everything will benefit everybody*”

    “In the bible it says to destroy the Soviet Union.”

    On another note, a goverment bailout of GM will delay the inevitable, we would just get another chrysler repeat. Let them die, they sealed their fate long ago.

    Being a ultranationalist, Reagan would bail out GM. He slapped Import restrictions on foreign-built automobiles in the 1980’s, and had considerable sway over Mulrooney, which is why my aunt had to wait 4 months for a Tercel in ’83. The auto years under Reagan the Great were Golden, GM built the best cars the universe had ever seen*. Who Could Forget The 6000(With it’s Glorious Varajet!) or the 86 Eldorado! AWESOME!

    *Not actually true.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    It’s obvious Obama is a Socialist but this takes the cake. I guess it’s the Bush administration’s fault GM is on the rocks.

  • avatar
    Gleetroit

    faster_than_rabbit:

    You’re confusing your right-wing talking points. There isn’t a “present” vote classification in the US Senate. The “present” thing happened in Illinois, and it has to do with the way the state political body operates. It’s strictly pro forma, similar to the way the US Senate Majority Leader must switch his vote to No on legislation he actually supports if he wants to bring up the legislation for consideration at a different time.

    I stand corrected. I was confusing Hillary’s “did not vote” record in the senate with Barack’s “present” vote in the Illinois legislature.

    To your other points about Reagan, though:

    Reagan is generally not praised as much for anything having to do with his “brilliant” campaign strategy. After all, he was running against Carter. Also, his own party didn’t really have a Hillary Clinton equivalant that he had to contend with (guys like G H W Bush, Dole, Connelly etc). Now that I think about it, none of them were as polarizing as Hillary so maybe it was something of an accomplishment to win the nomination.

    Reagan is generally credited with running the Soviet Union into utter financial collapse while actually making friends (sort of) with Gorbechev at the same time. With his talk of “Star Wars” and the space arms race, and the protective missile defense shield etc. the Communist system would be overextended trying to keep up and thus, he helped to create the conditions for the transition to democracy in the early ’90’s.

    Anyway, as for nationalized healthcare, when has government ever done anything as efficiently and cost effectively as the free market? We could talk about France’s wonderful healthcare system. It’s only 15 billion in the hole and let something like fifteen thousand people die in a heat wave. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

    The U.S. Government couldn’t even properly orchestrate an acceptable response to Katrina. That was due to “failures at every level” according to many analysts.

    Or we could slam private firms like Enron, or MCI Worldcom, or Adelphia or a handful of others that have cooked the books. Of course their leadership is or was all under indictment (rightly so) because we have laws in place and the system is doing it’s job. Imagine if we actually held our elected officials to this level of scrutiny when it comes to oversight of our tax dollars.

  • avatar
    geeber

    faster_than_rabbit: He won election to the US Senate. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was the most difficult thing imaginable in the Democratic primary. Even his supporters thought he’d be VP, at best. He’s beating McCain in the polls. Show me where McCain is more successful by your terms. For that matter, show me where St. Reagan did any of those things.

    One, winning primary elections and actually governing are two different things.

    And, two, poll numbers will change dramatically over the next few months as both candidates debate, make gaffes and further define their positions.

    faster_than_rabbit: He basically destroyed the entire free world and shredded whole sections of the Constitution — you can blame spineless Dems all you want for the FISA debacle — I personally do — but it’s the Bush Administration’s law. Bush and his so-called national security apparatus insisted on it.

    Bush “destroyed the entire free world?”

    Does he also sacrifice virgins and throw babies from skyscrapers?

    Was he also the “real killer” of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

    Step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and count to 10 before posting again, please.

    You also might want to stop hanging around all of those people who were claiming that the Clintons murdered something like 1/10 of the population of Arkansas to get to the White House. They are having an effect on you…

    faster_than_rabbit: Since nationalized health care existed in Britain prior to the formation of British Leyland, that is utterly irrelevant to the present situation.

    It’s VERY relevant. The argument being put forth is that if we had nationalized health care, GM would be in better financial shape, primarily because the cost of providing health care for employees and retirees would be spread over the entire population, instead of only GM. GM, therefore, could use the money it pays for health care to develop, say, a better Cobalt.

    If this were the case, then one would logically conclude that this would have helped British Leyland, a company that resembles GM in more ways than one. After all, British Leyland had a big advantage that GM doesn’t – it had the entire population of its native country bear the cost of providing health care to workers and retirees. And, by your own admission, nationalized health care in Great Britain was in place BEFORE British Leyland was formed.

    For that matter, the U.S. already has nationalized health care for senior citizens – it’s called Medicare – and retired UAW members show no inclination to ditch their GM provided plan for Medicare. Why? Because it’s not nearly as generous as the GM plan.

    KBW: To say that believing in scarcity is bad when it comes to economics is laughably ignorant.

    It’s how the scarcity is handled. Do we allow the government to basically ration the resource (which is rationing by legislative mandate), or the free market to do it (which is rationing by price)?

  • avatar
    bill h.

    I love all this talking past each other to make (mostly) irrelevant points.

    Time to go back to reading more about how the Japanese can whip our asses when it comes to building cars.

  • avatar
    KBW

    Anyway, as for nationalized healthcare, when has government ever done anything as efficiently and cost effectively as the free market?

    Clearly that is the case in some industries but the answer is different in different markets. Medicare has far lower overhead than private insurance companies. The so called “free market” in the insurance industry is anything but. People are typically locked into the insurance plans their companies choose. Buying insurance as an individual is almost impossible. The market choice is seldom made by the person which it will impact the most. The quality of the product is really not known until it needs to be used and by that time it may be too late. As a result, we have lovely cases such as this.
    http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=84930&catid=8

  • avatar
    geeber

    KBW: Medicare has far lower overhead than private insurance companies.

    Medicare largely covers one class of individual – the elderly – and doesn’t cover as much as most other insurance plans. Those two factors alone would cut down on overhead.

    KBW: People are typically locked into the insurance plans their companies choose.

    That’s a good argument for divorcing insurance coverage from employment.

    KBW: Buying insurance as an individual is almost impossible.

    It can be done, but a big problem is that state mandates require ALL policies to cover so many conditions that many people who only need a barebones policy (basically to cover a catastrophe, such as cancer, or a stroke) are priced out of the market.

    Here in Pennsylvania, state government recently required all insurance policies to cover autism-related services. This was enacted in response to pressure from parents of autistic children.

    That’s nice, but why does a single, childless 20-something (who would be a member of the biggest demographic group of uninsured individuals) need to purchase a policy that provides coverage for autism-related services?

    Imagine how expensive cars would be if the federal government demanded that every new car had the same equipment level and degree of engineering as a Mercedes E-Class?

    KBW: The market choice is seldom made by the person which it will impact the most.

    True, but I don’t see how nationalizing health care necessarily addresses this problem. The simple fact is that the big drivers of health care spending are care just before death, and preventable diseases and conditions.

    Regarding the former – Is the federal government really going to tell people, “Look, your mother is not going to live that much longer, so this (physical therapy, dialysis, surgery – take your pick) is a waste of time, money and resources.”? Our medical system is still geared toward extending life as much as possible, which costs LOTS of money. I’ve read that one of the biggest expenses is caring for people in the last six months of their life.

    As for the latter – Yes, people need to exercise more, eat healthier, not smoke and only drink alcohol in moderation. Make health care costs a government expense, and suddenly it will be in the government’s interest just how much we eat, exercise, drink, smoke, etc.

    If people are okay with that – fine.

    If not, they should not expect the government to pay for their health care expenses, and need to take a hard look at what is really driving health care costs.

  • avatar

    Why not just have the government make the cars and eliminate the waste of the private sector? If it works for health care why not automobiles?

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    faster than rabbit says “BS BS BS blah blah”

    When asked for obama’s accomplishments, he lists “beat hillary clinton” Whoa!

    obama’s sponsored a bill to give about 1% of our total GNP to the turd world. Anybody think that’s a good idea? obama was dead wrong on the surge, as were all the Dems and has now adjusted his position and erased all his previous positions on this from his website. Anyone read “1984”? obama wants to create a civilian national defense force as “powerful as the us military” All I can say to that is “WTF?”

    ftr mentions obama’s books. In one he says, paraphrasing “When the chips are down, I will stand with the Muslims.” Him and the CNDF I guess?

    Here’s a book title that applies to this guy “Clear and Present Danger”

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    KBW,

    That is not the definition of economics. Try again. Besides that, you know that is not what is meant by believing in scarcity.

    Hayek figured this out about a hundred years ago. Later, some folks took some “iffy” work from Keynes and warped it into a something that Hayek had already proved was baseless. Apparently, even Keynes claimed not to be a “Keynesian”, but don’t let that stop you.

    If your goal is to reduce healthcare costs, then the best way to do it is to take all parts of it which can be left to the market and get the state out. The parts that cannot be free markets, should then be socialized or highly regulated. This in between stuff is the problem.

    And furthermore, don’t call me ignorant.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: It was in a USA Today article BTW…not sure when it goes live.
  • Art Vandelay: 96 Month financing?! Does it magically become smart on a Tesla versus a high end pickup to finance it...
  • Wunsch: Until the comment about auctioning off the last C7 produced, I was clinging to the hope that GM would be...
  • bullnuke: You’ll take Mil-spec canvas and like it, mister.
  • gass-man: Why is this cars electrical system “cloud-based”? The “cloud” is just marketing...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States