• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM goes bankrupt and gets nationalised

 
Slippery Slope said:
The sun will shine tomorrow, need me to prove that too? Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the argument that's been going on concerning the UAW and the big three. :doh
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't been paying attention the last few years but the southern U.S. (up until the recession that's bit everyone) has been experiencing an economic boom for 20 years now. Our states in the south have been growing by leaps and bounds while the rust belt states, aptly named, up north have been bleeding jobs and population for years.

Take a look at the 2010 Census projections and how it will affect the Electoral College and Congressional apportionment.

File:proposed Electoral College 2012.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look who is gaining seats: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. Look who is losing seats: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

The states that have practiced tax friendly economics to both businesses and residents have thrived. The yankees up north who are still stuck in the economic 1950s are sweeping up the dirt of their once great empires.

Like we've been telling you for a long time: The South will rise again!

confederate_flag.jpg
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
Yup, you really are from SC.

How does the entity that pays the bill cause you to risk life and death?
Click to expand...

Because as I showed you in post 76, health care is rationed and denied to people if deemed too expensive. This has been going on in Britain for a while now and it has turned into a huge problem there. The architects of our socialist health care system intend to use the same methodology of keeping our costs down:

Patients count on their doctor to do whatever is possible to treat their illness. That is the promise doctors make by taking the Hippocratic Oath.

But President Obama’s advisers are looking to save money by interfering with that oath and controlling your doctor’s decisions.

Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving “overuse” of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel argues that “peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians.” He has lamented that doctors regard the “Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”

Of course, that is what patients hope their doctor will do.

But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in the nation’s health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor’s decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The legislation sets a goal that every individual’s treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on “appropriate” and “cost-effective” care.

Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.

“Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures,” he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.

Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:

“Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices.”

Yet he called it “debatable” whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
Click to expand...

And from the same article:

In critiquing the Hippocratic Oath, Dr. Emanuel calls for training medical students “to move toward more socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” He says the trend “from ‘do everything’ to palliative care shows that change in physician norms is possible.”
Click to expand...


Seems to me that people are dieing due to LACK of health coverage AND people are dieing because their private insurance won't pay for procedures.
Click to expand...

There will always be problems with any system, but the system we have in this country right now is far superior to the crap people are getting in the universal system. There is a reason why people come from all over the world to get treated in our country rather than Britain or Canada or France. The odds of survival with just about any disease is greater in this country than anywhere else in the world. We don't have people dying at anywhere near the rate of other nations. Are the costs starting to get a bit too high? Sure, I don't deny that, but you can blame the Federal government for that, the very same entity you're turning to to fix everything wrong with your life.

Go back to reading the bible, the end is near ya know.
Click to expand...

If we continue down this path, it's the end of freedom and liberty and the greatest country that ever existed thanks to Marxists like you.

And by the way, "dieing" is spelled dying. D-Y-I-N-G. I learned that in South Carolina. :2dance:
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Why don't we look at some REAL statistics rather than the nonsensical notions that abuse statistical data?

What is Europe’s GDP over the last ten years versus the US?

What is the tax rate of Europeans versus comparable rates of US citizens?

What is the spending on Government welfare as a percentage of GNP of European nations and the USA?

Why is it that European nations can spend such a paltry sum on their nations defense over what the USA spends?

Why is it that you can take statistics about health spending per capita in a vacuum of what that spending constitutes; in other words, does it occur to you that we may spend more per capita because our plans allow us to do much more testing than that permitted by Government plans?

What is the R&D spending in European systems versus that in the USA?

How is Europe going to deal with the impending disaster of not being able to pay for its welfare and health programs by an already over-burdened tax payer?

Truly, it defies logic to think that these statistics somehow support the notion that Government managed ANYTHING is cost effective, provides better services, provides better care and has more choice than the current system in America.

A friend in Canada once called and complained that he had to wait more than a month to see a doctor for something as benign as acid reflux; I can get with my doctor tomorrow for ANYTHING.

I had another friend who told the story of her father’s death due to the failure of the British health system; a death that would NOT have occurred here. He had a serious heart condition and needed open heart surgery; he was placed on a waiting list. They decided that the condition merited paying additional money OUTSIDE the system for more immediate care; they were put on a two week waiting list. He died waiting for surgery that here in the US he would never have been let out of the hospital for.

There are several things certain that occur in a Government "managed" (oxymoron) plan; mediocrity for EVERYONE; less specialists; long waiting times; higher taxes and costs and a lack of research and development.

Why anyone would want to give up their freedom of choice and become a dependent ward of the State is beyond my comprehension. But Europeans and Canadians have been doing it for so long, they cannot comprehend a better system with MORE choice.
Click to expand...
To continue...
Having lived and continuing to live on both sides of the pond, it's amazing to see Americans be suckered into this false notion that socialism works in any form.

Fact is, it's absolute craziness to think this stuff works, especially now when we have been witnessing the decay of these systems in Canada and Europe, long before the economic crisis.

They worked fine in the beginning, when their post-war economies were booming, but such socialist systems are eventually ripe for and are corrupted. In crisis, when there is less cash, when the number of people paying into the system decreases, and the recipients start to demand services they paid for (and "free" means absolutely no compunction to use and abuse it prolifically)... what then?

First rationing; government deciding what you get and when... if you get at all.
Second; collapse of the system.

The best EU countries as American states, how would they stack up?
In the bottom 5 American states.
That's the idiocy Obama wants to follow.

THIS REPORT IS ABOUT THE FACT that per capita GDP is lower in most of the countries of Europe than in most of the states of the USA. That France, Italy and Germany have less per capita GDP than all but five of the states of the USA ... Or that (Sweden) a country which, if it were a part of the USA, would rank as one of the very poorest states in that Union? Can this be true? Is it plausible? It is both true and plausible.

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

Today, the perspectives on the EU, and the outlook on its future, are radically different. Economic growth during the 1990s never became what many had wished for. Some countries performed reasonably well, most notably Ireland, but on the whole the EU was lagging far behind other countries during the whole decade. Productivity growth decreased and by mid-decade the EU was running behind the US in this respect. The
process of convergence in productivity, a much talked-about process since the 1970s, had once again become a process of divergence.

The role, and status, of the EU in the economic reform process has also changed. Instead of a clear focus on economic reforms and growth, the EU (the Commission as well as the Council) has concentrated its ambitions on other political objectives. Hence, the EU no longer is – or is seen as – the great economic liberator of Europe.

This study is based on a widely acclaimed and thought-provoking book – Sweden versus the US – that was published earlier this year in Swedish by the same authors – Dr. Fredrik Bergström, President of The Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr. Robert Gidehag, formerly the Chief Economist of the same institute, and now President of the Swedish Taxpayers’ Association. The study presents important perspectives on European growth and welfare. Its highlight is the benchmark of EU member states and regions to US states. The disturbing result of that benchmark should put it at the top of the agenda for Europe’s future.
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
What? Geez, talk about hackery, dude, seriously, do you live in the south?
A unions job is to negotiate fair compensation for it's members.

I guess you don't even understand what you are saying. If high compensation are the reason GM can't compete the raising the compensation of it's competition makes GM competitive. :doh
Click to expand...
Another no-content response from good ol' Slippery.
Good to see that some things never change.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
You will find the states that are highly unionized have a lower productivity then non unionized states. You will also find that those state lose jobs to other states/countries at faster rate.

How again is it good for the economy?
Click to expand...
Who cares? As long as the unions keep their power, all is well.
 
Slippery Slope said:
A unions job is to negotiate fair compensation for it's members.
Click to expand...

The job of anyone on a side of the negotiating table is to get as much as possible for as little as possible.

If you don't accept that, then it is YOU who are the naive one.


I guess you don't even understand what you are saying. If high compensation are the reason GM can't compete the raising the compensation of it's competition makes GM competitive. :doh
Click to expand...

It doesn't make GM any more competitive; it simply cripples the competition and make everyone less well-off, including the "middle class" who will see car prices in general skyrocket.

But then, that IS modern American liberalism in a nutshell.
 
Funny thread.

We have every single excuse but that actual reason for GMs demise.

It is the union's fault.
It is the massive healthcare cost of GM, plus lets throw in random UHC hatred.
And finally it is the union's fault again.

How about the truth for all you that are in denial?

GM made crap cars that were out dated before they even hit the market. Their management was crap and their whole business strategy was brain dead. Basicly, it was the managements fault, put in place by the greedy shareholders.

And Zimmer your crackpot "proof" about Europe's UHC system still dont fly even months after it was debunked by me.
 
Slippery Slope said:
OK, so now collective bargaining is extortion. So when you, meaning YOU, go to your boss and say - I want a raise in pay or I'm going to quit - you consider that extortion in the legal sense? :shock:
Click to expand...
No, I consider it a condition and a statement of fact, appropriate unless I am under contract, in which case we would both be required to honor those terms. As an contracted employee, or a contracted on with freedom to terminate unilaterally, I have the right to issue a simple statement of fact that I may exercise my right if I continue to feel that continued employment under the existing terms is not to my satisfaction.

If on the other hand I go to my boss and say, give me a raise or I'll shut your business down (strike), that is simple extortion, and never should have been legal.

To take a job, agree to the terms of employment and then try to force a change is the act of a common thug.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
How about the truth for all you that are in denial?
Click to expand...
The truth? Ok...
You've been asked this before, without any response...
How much DID the unions and the health care have to play in the deminse of GM?
 
Goobieman said:
The truth? Ok...
You've been asked this before, without any response...
How much DID the unions and the health care have to play in the deminse of GM?
Click to expand...

They had their part no doubt about that.

But tell me this..

Is it the unions fault that the management of GM were a bunch of pansies that allowed the company to become a bloated cestpool?

Is it the unions fault that the management of GM decade after decade successfully bribed the US lawmakers to not implement fuel efficiency standards?

Is it the unions fault that the management of GM refused to accept the fact that oil would run out and that alternatives were needed? Or that the present cars were too expensive to run at a certain oil price because of the mileage issue?

Is it the unions fault that the management of GM and GM as a whole have produced substandard and crappy cars for decades?

As for the healthcare costs. Again, is it the unions fault that the GM management bent over and took it up the butt and allowed these things?

Is it the unions fault that the US healthcare system is a failure of epic poportions and driven by a bunch of greedy monopolistic companies that have driven prices up and up for years on end?

While I am the first to admit that the unions have damaged GM, no one can deny that the majority of the blame has to be put on the management of GM, put in place by the shareholders. It is their epic fails year after year, decade after decade, that have resulted in the demise of the once proud General Motors. The unions was only a small part in the grand scale of things, but seems to get most of the blame from the usual conservative persons on these boards and in the media.. frankly pathetic.
 
PeteEU said:
They had their part no doubt about that.
Click to expand...
OK, so there IS more to "the truth" than "GM made crap cars", etc.
Thanks.
 
PeteEU said:
Funny thread.

We have every single excuse but that actual reason for GMs demise.

It is the union's fault.
It is the massive healthcare cost of GM, plus lets throw in random UHC hatred.
And finally it is the union's fault again.

How about the truth for all you that are in denial?

GM made crap cars that were out dated before they even hit the market. Their management was crap and their whole business strategy was brain dead. Basicly, it was the managements fault, put in place by the greedy shareholders.

And Zimmer your crackpot "proof" about Europe's UHC system still dont fly even months after it was debunked by me.
Click to expand...

You mean the union made crap cars, don't you?
 
"Crap cars" which still outsold everyone else's.

If you're selling more cars yet still can't compete, what does that mean?
 
PeteEU said:
Is it the unions fault that the management of GM were a bunch of pansies that allowed the company to become a bloated cestpool?
Click to expand...

Sure, works for me.

Why couldn't GM invest heavily in R&D? They had to pay union extortion.

PeteEU said:
Is it the unions fault that the management of GM decade after decade successfully bribed the US lawmakers to not implement fuel efficiency standards?
Click to expand...

The US Constitution doesn't allow the US government to design cars, that includes setting CAFE standards.

Therefore the issue is one of government interference, not one of corporate control of Congress.

PeteEU said:
Is it the unions fault that the management of GM refused to accept the fact that oil would run out and that alternatives were needed?
Click to expand...

Oil ran out?

When did that happen? Last time I checked, the United States has 2,300 billion barrels of oil in reserve.

Yes, it's the unions fault for electing socialist congressthings that the US government has steadfastly refused to tap those reserves.

PeteEU said:
Or that the present cars were too expensive to run at a certain oil price because of the mileage issue?
Click to expand...

Yes. First off, the cost of car ownership is dominated by initial purchase price, which is driven by labor costs. Secondly, as pointed out, it's the unions that elect the socialist Congressthings that have kept the oil underground. And with those two items, the last becomes irrelevant.

PeteEU said:
Is it the unions fault that the management of GM and GM as a whole have produced substandard and crappy cars for decades?
Click to expand...

GM made damn good trucks. I still like my 350-V8 3500 series van from 1990.

PeteEU said:
As for the healthcare costs. Again, is it the unions fault that the GM management bent over and took it up the butt and allowed these things?
Click to expand...

In a word, yes.

PeteEU said:
Is it the unions fault that the US healthcare system is a failure of epic poportions
Click to expand...

The US has an excellent health care system. Just because it's not a smoking wreck of a socialist system doesn't mean it's wrong.

PeteEU said:
and driven by a bunch of greedy monopolistic companies that have driven prices up and up for years on end?
Click to expand...

Oh. You mean the government.

PeteEU said:
While I am the first to admit that the unions have damaged GM, no one can deny that the majority of the blame has to be put on the management of GM, put in place by the shareholders. It is their epic fails year after year, decade after decade, that have resulted in the demise of the once proud General Motors. The unions was only a small part in the grand scale of things, but seems to get most of the blame from the usual conservative persons on these boards and in the media.. frankly pathetic.
Click to expand...

The union was a huge part of GM's failure. Anyone denying this can't comprehend what happened.
 
Harshaw said:
"Crap cars" which still outsold everyone else's.

If you're selling more cars yet still can't compete, what does that mean?
Click to expand...

Even that is not true any longer. Toyota took over as worlds largest auto maker this year.
 
Redress said:
Even that is not true any longer. Toyota took over as worlds largest auto maker this year.
Click to expand...

By a little bit, yes. But GM's troubles have been going on a for a long time, and only LAST YEAR did anyone outsell them, for the first time in 77 years, and only then by about 7%.

So, how does a company outsell everyone else yet still be bankrupt?
 
The factual reasons for the demise of GM, Chrysler and the poor sales and productivity of Ford go back much farther than just a couple of years and encompass more than these three companies alone.
During the oil embargo of the 70 the hand writing was on the wall that changes were needed and the response was meager at best with the introduction of the Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, which were of questionable success and the slightly better yet still failed Chrysler K-cars. None of them are around today because they were stop gap measures and had no long range planning go into them ,and the minute the oil embargo lifted these cars went away for ever. Some would rightfully say for the good, and they would be right. But the big three went right back to the thinking that had brought them to that point and they ignored the need to fundamental changes that were needed like for quality control and product lines to compete with the imports from Datsun at the time Toyota, Mazda. So for thirty years it was pretty much business as usual and all the while market share was dwindling and the innovation this country has been famous for over 200 years went for the most part untapped.
At the same time the problems listed very well by others in this thread went unchecked and were allowed to dictate contracts that led to lower profits and long term damage to the industry as quality and productivity fell at the same time the import manufacturers were coming to our shores producing higher quality, better mileage, more profitable cars in nonunion shops and still the big three management went on in the same mode that they have been in for most of there business lives. All the while the cost of production was driving the cost per unit past the rate of inflation.
At the same time other industries like housing and real estate along with many consumer product costs kept climbing at out of control rates without justification.
Eventually all this and schemes like NAFTA & GATT the Machiladora program along with unanswered unchecked cheap imports all leading to job loses in almost all manufacturing set the stage for the collapse we have all seen recently come to a head.
Then we have to look at the unprecedented Government take over of private businesses and ask the questions about the longer term effects this will have on the free market process as well as the cost initially bail outs and whether they were worth it or did they just postpone the inevitable, and we would have been better off to allow most of these failed companies go through bankruptcy on there own?
It is clear to me that while we are hearing from Obama that he doesn't want to run these companies it is exactly what is being done. We are in need with actual leadership and change and talking about change is not change. Saying one thing and acting in contrast to your statements is not leadership it's lying.
As much as I love this country and have always thought of myself as a patriot I have to admit that there are few areas where of Government run programs are models to be emulate by business.
I hope this makes sense to you. Seldom does logic or long range planning or thought enter into some business management and most Government and politics I know, I've seen and done it all from both sides.
It's time for Statesmanship in leadership in our Country to replace partisan political hacks who put their party and ideology ahead of the Country and our citizens future.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
The factual reasons for the demise of GM, Chrysler and the poor sales and productivity of Ford go back much farther than just a couple of years and encompass more than these three companies alone.
During the oil embargo of the 70 the hand writing was on the wall that changes were needed and the response was meager at best with the introduction of the Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, which were of questionable success and the slightly better yet still failed Chrysler K-cars. None of them are around today because they were stop gap measures and had no long range planning go into them, and the minute the oil embargo lifted these cars went away for ever. Some would rightfully say for the good, and they would be right.
Click to expand...
I's not sure how you reach this conclusion -- look at the Chevy/Ford priduct lines in 1975 and then in 1985 -- you'll see that all of the cars across the same class are smaller, lighter and more efficient.

But the big three went right back to the thinking that had brought them to that point and they ignored the need to fundamental changes that were needed like for quality control and product lines to compete with the imports from Datsun at the time Toyota, Mazda.
Click to expand...
THIS has some merit. Domestic quality control has always been an issue, which as amuch to do with the people that put them together as the people that design them.
 
Harshaw said:
By a little bit, yes. But GM's troubles have been going on a for a long time, and only LAST YEAR did anyone outsell them, for the first time in 77 years, and only then by about 7%.

So, how does a company outsell everyone else yet still be bankrupt?
Click to expand...

That would be higher costs.

Not arguing with you, just pointed out that GM is no longer the top auto maker. By the way, if it is by 7 %, that is not a "little bit", but actually pretty huge.
 
I have been driving since 1960's, never purchased a foreign branded car, never had a lemon, never even had a major component fail, and I usually hang onto them til they reach 100K miles on the odometer.
GM was surviving on its reputation and the economic crisis put it under.

all that aside, I don't see the govt as being the white knight that saves GM from being eaten by the dragon.
 
The thing is, if GM is to survive under government/union management, then everyone else is going to have to be nationalized, too.

Otherwise, GM is doomed. Its ability to compete will be even worse than it was before. Government and union interests are simply counter to market viability.

So, either GM is done, or so is the entire private automobile industry.
 
Harshaw said:
The thing is, if GM is to survive under government/union management, then everyone else is going to have to be nationalized, too.

Otherwise, GM is doomed. Its ability to compete will be even worse than it was before. Government and union interests are simply counter to market viability.

So, either GM is done, or so is the entire private automobile industry.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom