By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Next up: $300 Billion dollars bail out (CitiBank)

Kasz216 on 25 November 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
The Big Three Bailout is separate. It would only be around $25 billion (although most anyone who knows what is going on know that it would end up being more than that).

I'm torn on the Big Three Bailout. If there was one, it would have to be extreme in its criteria. I mean to the point where the entire board of directors is kicked out and there have to be many tangible steps taken to show that the car companies are going to change.

But I have recently been convinced that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a better option. This is because Chapter 11 would allow the car manufacturers to negate a lot of the current obligations they have.

Part of the car manufacturers problems is that their cost structure makes them uncompetitive. Toyota, for example, has a fraction of the number of dealerships that GM has, while both have about the same market share. This is because local car dealers have petitioned to their states to get legislation favorable to enforcing restrictive contracts where dealerships only sell certain types of cars. This has ballooned costs across the board.

Another problem is the labor contracts GM and the rest of the Big Three have. These have just gotten completely out of control, with the car companies promising pensions they could never fulfill. I am for equitable treatment of labor, but it just isn't working with GM. They are also paying more than is competitive to their laborers. I may be pretty liberal, but I do know my economics.

So all in all I am against a bailout for the Big Three, as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing would solve more of their problems and the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for the car manufacturers' poor choices.

Dude try working one of those jobs and tell me that.

They're outright horrible.  You wake up every day dreading going in, but knowing you can't quit because you aren't going to get a workable wage otherwise.  You dream of fucking quiting a job there.

It's outright horrible.  Those people really don't get overpaid.  They get paid just enough to stop themselves from blowing their brains out or quitting.

The real problem is that.

A) We don't have universal healthcare.  So anyone who gives good healthcare to their workers is at a huge disadvatnage vs countries with universal healthcare or countries where people don't expect healthcare

B) Everyone bought into SUVs, cause that's what America wanted till oil got all fucked up.

Absolutely, but a bailout wouldn't solve either one of these problems, and neither would going into Chapter 11.  GM and the other two need to get their heads out of their ass and have a more diversified business model.

Universal healthcare would really help a lot of employers (if implemented correctly) as it would shift a lot of burden away from them in having to ever offer healthcare to their employers.

 

No but going into chapter 11 means a lot of people are going to lose their healtcare.... a  lot of whom can't afford to.

 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 25 November 2008
akuma587 said:

Universal healthcare would really help a lot of employers (if implemented correctly) as it would shift a lot of burden away from them in having to ever offer healthcare to their employers.

 

Obama's plan is to tax the shit out of any company (excluding small business) that does not provide healthcare.

Companies will be paying for it one way or another. The only thing this does, is hurt the ones not providing it. It does nothing for the ones that do. Unless by some miracle, insurance rates go down. It has been my experience that when Government gets involved, prices alway go up. Every single time.

There is no evidence that this would be any different.



akuma587 on 25 November 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Universal healthcare would really help a lot of employers (if implemented correctly) as it would shift a lot of burden away from them in having to ever offer healthcare to their employers.

 

Obama's plan is to tax the shit out of any company (excluding small business) that does not provide healthcare.

Companies will be paying for it one way or another. The only thing this does, is hurt the ones not providing it. It does nothing for the ones that do. Unless by some miracle, insurance rates go down. It has been my experience that when Government gets involved, prices alway go up. Every single time.

There is no evidence that this would be any different.

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 25 November 2008
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Universal healthcare would really help a lot of employers (if implemented correctly) as it would shift a lot of burden away from them in having to ever offer healthcare to their employers.

 

Obama's plan is to tax the shit out of any company (excluding small business) that does not provide healthcare.

Companies will be paying for it one way or another. The only thing this does, is hurt the ones not providing it. It does nothing for the ones that do. Unless by some miracle, insurance rates go down. It has been my experience that when Government gets involved, prices alway go up. Every single time.

There is no evidence that this would be any different.

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 

 

There is a huge difference between the government regulating something, and the government running something.

When you give money to the US government for the purposes of providing a service, the level of efficiency is orders of magnitude lower than the private sector. Find me one example where that is not true.

 



Kasz216 on 25 November 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Universal healthcare would really help a lot of employers (if implemented correctly) as it would shift a lot of burden away from them in having to ever offer healthcare to their employers.

 

Obama's plan is to tax the shit out of any company (excluding small business) that does not provide healthcare.

Companies will be paying for it one way or another. The only thing this does, is hurt the ones not providing it. It does nothing for the ones that do. Unless by some miracle, insurance rates go down. It has been my experience that when Government gets involved, prices alway go up. Every single time.

There is no evidence that this would be any different.

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 

 

There is a huge difference between the government regulating something, and the government running something.

When you give money to the US government for the purposes of providing a service, the level of efficiency is orders of magnitude lower than the private sector. Find me one example where that is not true.

Well when it comes to healthcare the VA has one of the best and most cost efficient healthcare systems in the country at the moment.

Of course it used to be one of the worst.

 



Around the Network
akuma587 on 26 November 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 

 

There is a huge difference between the government regulating something, and the government running something.

When you give money to the US government for the purposes of providing a service, the level of efficiency is orders of magnitude lower than the private sector. Find me one example where that is not true.

 

So should we get rid of all our police and firemen and hire out private companies to fulfill those roles instead?

We could scrap out military too and just hire other countries to fight our wars for us too.  I mean the government obviously can do nothing right, so why should we let them do anything at all?  That is what you are advocating right?

We should get rid of public schools too and have an all private school system.  If you can't afford school, then it looks like you are just out of luck.

We should cut off government funding to universities too.  And we should cut off government funding to hospitals too to reimburse them for some of their costs.

And screw allowing them to plan out our roads for us.  We should let the private sector do that too.  I mean the government is just full of worthless bureaucrats who care about themselves.  Lets let the private sector do it too!

I mean the government just does nothing right, so why should we even HAVE government at all!

 

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 26 November 2008
Kasz216 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 

 

There is a huge difference between the government regulating something, and the government running something.

When you give money to the US government for the purposes of providing a service, the level of efficiency is orders of magnitude lower than the private sector. Find me one example where that is not true.

Well when it comes to healthcare the VA has one of the best and most cost efficient healthcare systems in the country at the moment.

Of course it used to be one of the worst.

 

You're lying Kasz.  That's just not possible.  Anytime the government does something it is inefficient and raises costs automatically.  That's what Mafoo said, so it has to be true. 

Its just not possible that the insurance companies in the private sector have abused favorable legislation passed for them and have set prices at artificially high levels.  That just can't happen.  The market can do no wrong and the government can do no right.  The government just couldn't do it better than the private sector.  Its flat out impossible.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 26 November 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Just like when the government decided to deregulate the health insurance market across a number of states, like Texas, and rates skyrocketed?  Damn that government involvement!  The government should get involved way less often!

And note, I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan.  I think there are better ways to do universal healthcare than Obama is proposing, but the American public is still pretty resistant to true universal healthcare.

 

 

There is a huge difference between the government regulating something, and the government running something.

When you give money to the US government for the purposes of providing a service, the level of efficiency is orders of magnitude lower than the private sector. Find me one example where that is not true.

Well when it comes to healthcare the VA has one of the best and most cost efficient healthcare systems in the country at the moment.

Of course it used to be one of the worst.

 

You're lying Kasz.  That's just not possible.  Anytime the government does something it is inefficient and raises costs automatically.  That's what Mafoo said, so it has to be true. 

Its just not possible that the insurance companies in the private sector have abused favorable legislation passed for them and have set prices at artificially high levels.  That just can't happen.  The market can do no wrong and the government can do no right.  The government just couldn't do it better than the private sector.  Its flat out impossible.

 

One major advantage for the VA, they don't take people off the street. If they had to adhere to the same rules that normal hospitals have to, they would run at a massive additional cost. One far worse then public health institutions.