Bailout Watch 5: Obama– "GM Would Thrive Under the Right Policies"

by Robert Farago

Updated: August 28th, 2008 Published: July 15th, 2008

bailout watch 5 obama gm would thrive under the right policies

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.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 55 comments

Geeber on Jul 16, 2008
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.

Like Reply
Bbscan on Jul 16, 2008

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?

Like Reply
TonyTiger on Jul 16, 2008

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"

Like Reply
Landcrusher on Jul 16, 2008

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.

Like Reply