• 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

Hey, that's great. Now you can buy a car from the government (GM), get it financed and insured by the government (AIG), and if you can't make the payments, go on government welfare and have the payments made for you. Did I also mention that the price for a new car will double? Get ready for the government bailout of Budweiser. $100.00 six packs are coming soon, and you can also finance one of those through AIG. Just put up your GM car as collateral. Conversely, you can use the beer as collateral to buy a car, that is, if you haven't drank it already. :mrgreen:
Yes be afraid!!! Run and hide because the big bad government is coming... tomorrow of course but get ready!! There are only 5 or 6 people for the government to silence before they have complete control of your mind... :rofl I just love to hear people spew their conspiracy theories about big brother and out the other side of their mouth they condemn all other conspiracy theories as nutty.
 
I don't like the keys of general motors being in the hands of Washington. I think this is a large risk we are taking, by keeping a problematic company alive. General Motors is now being jump-started, with the hope that it can make it to through the next couple of years; where it can see it's Chinese wing bringing in mad-dough.

The problem is that in order for General Motors to last long enough it needs the ingenuity that it's competitors have. It needs to stop the Hummer mentality and compete.

Personally. I think we should have let General Motors evaporate. Yes, jobs would be lost, revenue would be down, and yes it would be a big problem. However, if we don't cut the cancerous tissue early, then there may be larger organs at stake... more than just a tissue.
 
And for anyone who's interested? A British worker on minimum wage contributes £24(around $50) to the NHS in the form of taxes per annum and receives a high standard of care - higher, in many instancs, than that which can be received in the US.

No, a British worker does not receive a better standard of health care than Americans. Health care in Britain sucks big time. They ration, they have massively long waiting lists for surgery, they get denied life saving drugs if the state deems it will cost too much, etc. You can read about this almost daily in some newspaper some where. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
the first part of the solution is national healthcare, the second is making a better product and the third is renegotiating with the unions

American companies can't be competitive with foreign countries that have national healthcare. The model of employer provided health insurance only worked because the US was afforded so much prosperity after WII. It's not sustainable, and that's being illustrated clearly now.

But it would also help if they stopped building ludicrous cars. 8 ton suburban assault vehicles might sell for a lot individually but they're far too easily affected by oil price fluctuations.

GOT FACTS?

National healthcare will cost EVERYONE far more than the current system, provide LESS choice, force everyone into the same mediocre care and lead to a lower customer service. The only people who will have a choice will once more be the wealthiest among us just as it is in Europe and Canada. Why do people make this farcical claim in the face of the disasters befalling our allies who have it?

I keep seeing everyone claim this helps Europe’s industry; but Europe’s industry is far more unproductive than our own and Europe is heading for a growing disaster with the realization that the cost of these programs is expanding PAST their ability to tax their citizens for them.

Why would ANYONE think that Government can do a better job managing the cost of healthcare watching the current infestation of idiots in Congress spend us all into a $1.8 trillion deficit, ever increasing amounts of debt and a growing disaster funding Medicare and Social Security?

What parallel universe do we live in where anyone could think that a Government managed plan would be efficient, cost effective and actually work?

Mercedes had merged with Chrysler; Jaguar by Ford but now by Tata an India company, Volvo owned by Ford. BMW is building cars in former East Block nations and the USA as are many other "foreign" producers. One of the largest car makers in Europe is a GM subsidiary called Opel. The notion that overseas is a better manufacturing environment than here in the USA where unions are not predominating is laughable and can only be made in a vacuum of the facts and reality.

What is relevant is not nationalized healthcare which will only lead to mediocrity and much higher costs for fewer services to the American people; it is properly managing your labor and pension costs. When times were good, GM made the mistake of caving into its Unions.

The Unions argument always had a populist tone that they should share in the HUGE profits and benefit from them; but they certainly did not agree that they would also share with the losses when they came. Their contracts were one-sided events supported by Democrat politicians who pander to ignorance.

Now in the tough times, the high cost of these agreements has come home to roost and the largess of a management that became complacent.

The notion that GM didn't make cars everyone wanted and bought is patently false and cannot be supported by the FACTS. It is equally specious to suggest that Toyota did better by having the Prius; but this vehicle as popular as it is made out to be has YET to bring a profit to Toyota. One of Toyota's best selling cars was the Tundra pickup; a BIG gas guzzling truck in direct competition to the successful models produced by GM and Ford.

National healthcare will bankrupt the taxpayers of this great nation and will just add to the mountain of debt and deficits Democrats have YET to tell us how they will be paid for. It would be disastrous to this nation’s economy if this happens.

Top Ten Best Selling Vehicles of 2008:

1. Ford F-150 515,513 Units Sold: This is the 12th generation of Ford's fullsize pickup truck, and it manages to retain the mantle of the best-selling vehicle in the United States for the 23rd straight year. Still, its 515,513 sales pales in comparison to that of its heyday in the mid-2000s, when the Blue Oval sold nearly a million F-150s each year.

2. Chevy Silverado 465,065 Units Sold: The Chevy Silverado is the perennial second-best seller here in the U.S. and it again earns that title for 2008 with a total of 465,065 units sold, despite the slowdown in truck sales due to record-high gasoline prices over the summer months. Care to guess guess what vehicle has again kept its crown for the year that just was?

3. Toyota Camry 436,617 Units Sold: Toyota, and specifically the midsize Camry sedan, has a well-earned reputation of providing transportation for the masses of Americans that just want to get from one place to another with a reasonable amount of style and a great deal of reliability. Those virtues were enough to earn the Camry some 436,617 sales, making it the best-selling passenger car in America.

4. Honda Accord 372,789 Units Sold: Honda has carved a sizable niche for itself out of the midsize sedan market by continually refining its high-quality, high-technology and extremely reliable sedan, the Accord. Honda's 372,789 Accord sales was enough to earn it the number 4 spot. Only one other car outsold the Accord.

5. Toyota Corolla 351,007 Units Sold: Toyota's compact Corolla sedan is now in its 10th generation, and it continues to build on its successful formula of offering as reliable a car as possible for a relatively low price. That tried-and-true plan netted Toyota 351,007 buyers in 2008.

6. Honda Civic 339,289 Units Sold:The Civic compact sedan marks Honda's second of three spots on the list of top sellers in 2008, with a total of 339,289 units sold. First introduced way back in 1972 as a 2-door coupe, and it's currently in its 8th generation.

7. Nissan Altima 269,668 Units Sold: Nissan's best selling vehicle is its Altima midsize sedan, which earned 269,668 total sales in 2008. The Altima is a relative newcomer to the scene, having hit the market in 1993 and now in its third-generation. Only four cars and two trucks managed to outsell the Altima last year.

8. Chevy Impala 265,840 Units Sold: The current Chevy Impala may not conjure up the same memories that its fullsize V8-powered forebears earned, but it's still an excellent seller for General Motors with a total of 265,840 sold in 2008.

9. Dodge Ram 245,840 Units Sold: Dodge made a big splash in 1994 when it introduced "big rig" styling to the non-commercial pickup market, and the latest version carries that same theme a step further with all-new styling and the market's only coil-over rear suspension arrangement. Two trucks sold more than the Dodge's 245,840 units, but there are a few cars wedged firmly in between.

10. Honda CR-V 197,279 Units Sold: Honda helped kick-start the compact crossover segment back in 1996 with its first CR-V. Now in its third-generation, the CR-V continues to offer just the right mix of space, style, efficiency and reliability for the 197,279 who drove one off the lot in 2008.


Best Selling Cars of 2008

How many Toyota Prius were sold? In 2008, Toyota sold 158,886 Prius hatchbacks.

HowStuffWorks "Top 10 Selling Hybrid Cars"

How many Toyota gas guzzling Tundras were sold? Commanding nearly 20-percent of the total market with US sales looking good to hit over 200,000 units this year.

2008 Toyota Tundra Double Cab SR5 4X4 5.7L Road Test - Carpages.ca

GENERAL MOTORS BEATS TOYOTA FOR WORLD SALES LEADER
Sales figures disputed but does it matter?
Joseph Cabadas & Michael Rose, Saturday, January 26 2008
Great Cars | GENERAL MOTORS BEATS TOYOTA FOR WORLD SALES LEADER | Sales, Toyota, Global, Year, Company
 
What Ails GM
By George F. Will
Sunday, May 1, 2005; Page B07

Who knew? Speculation about which welfare state will be the first to buckle under the strain of the pension and medical costs of aging populations usually focuses on European nations with declining birthrates and aging populations. Who knew the first to buckle would be General Motors, with Ford not far behind?

GM is a car and truck company -- for the 74th consecutive year, the world's largest -- and has revenue greater than Arizona's gross state product. But GM's stock price is down 45 percent from a year ago; its market capitalization is smaller than Harley-Davidson's. This is partly because GM is a welfare state.

Health care for retirees and their families -- there are 2.6 of them for every active worker -- is 69 percent of GM's health costs. GM says it has $19.8 billion in cash, and normal mortality rates will reduce the ratio of retirees to active workers. Meanwhile, Rick Wagoner, GM's chief executive, can only muse, "It's strange. When I joined GM 28 years ago, I did it because I love cars and trucks. I had no idea I'd wind up working as a health care administrator."

.
 
Last edited:
Why would ANYONE think that Government can do a better job managing the cost of healthcare watching the current infestation of idiots in Congress spend us all into a $1.8 trillion deficit, ever increasing amounts of debt and a growing disaster funding Medicare and Social Security?

What parallel universe do we live in where anyone could think that a Government managed plan would be efficient, cost effective and actually work?

Yeah, that's what kills me more than anything. The government screws up everything it touches and yet we have all these morons out there who want to literally risk life and death for someone else to pay their medical bills all under the bureaucracy of the government.
 
Hey, that's great. Now you can buy a car from the government (GM), get it financed and insured by the government (AIG), and if you can't make the payments, go on government welfare and have the payments made for you. Did I also mention that the price for a new car will double? Get ready for the government bailout of Budweiser. $100.00 six packs are coming soon, and you can also finance one of those through AIG. Just put up your GM car as collateral. Conversely, you can use the beer as collateral to buy a car, that is, if you haven't drank it already. :mrgreen:
AB is now owned by a belgium company :(
 
Exactly. Nationalised health care requires only small contributions from every worker in the nation, while employer provided insurance not only means more expense for employers but leaves workers tied to jobs they may wish to leave for fear of losing coverage. The UK spends far less per person on healthcare than the US, but we spend it efficiently and can ficus our time and money on providing care as opposed to working in billing departments and going through the financial ramifications of every single tiny little treatment. Cut that useless beureacracy, and everyone benefits.

And for anyone who's interested? A British worker on minimum wage contributes £24(around $50) to the NHS in the form of taxes per annum and receives a high standard of care - higher, in many instancs, than that which can be received in the US.

I see facts are elusive to you. The notion that the European healthcare requires a "small" contribution from every worker is made in a vacuum of the facts.

European workers pay a far greater percentage in taxes than American workers and to a system that provides a mediocre level of services and care and requires, in many instances, long waiting times.

Compound that with the current state of National care in Europe and Canada and the FACT that Europe is facing a growing crises in that they are running out of funds to pay for these mediocre programs and the reality that they have pretty much taxed out their citizens.

The notion that Europeanizing the US is a good thing can only be expressed by Europeans who would like to see the US sink to their level or by Americans who are ignorant of the FACTS.

A great article expressing the faults of Universal care and how to make America's system far better:

June 13, 2007
Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation
by The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D., Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner
Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation
 
Wrong. It's the lack of unionization by the ignorant southerners and foreign companies.

I can not for the life of me understand the mentality that says 'I will fight to get paid less and accept fewer benefits than a union worker doing the same job.' So that CEOs and shareholders can make more money... baffling. :confused:

Once again we see a "bumper sticker" argument from Liberals who would rather parrot Liberal talking points than examine the FACTS.

Initially, many transplant companies actively chose locations in right-to-work states in the south to avoid unionized labor in the north, and the presumed accompanying costs. Even though the transplants still prefer right-to-work locations, their per employee compensation costs have remained comparable to those of workers in unionized plants.

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/North-SouthPaper.PDF
 
No, a British worker does not receive a better standard of health care than Americans. Health care in Britain sucks big time. They ration, they have massively long waiting lists for surgery, they get denied life saving drugs if the state deems it will cost too much, etc. You can read about this almost daily in some newspaper some where. You have no idea what you're talking about.

This is true of virtually ALL Government managed programs. :2wave:
 
I see facts are elusive to you. The notion that the European healthcare requires a "small" contribution from every worker is made in a vacuum of the facts.

European workers pay a far greater percentage in taxes than American workers and to a system that provides a mediocre level of services and care and requires, in many instances, long waiting times.

Compound that with the current state of National care in Europe and Canada and the FACT that Europe is facing a growing crises in that they are running out of funds to pay for these mediocre programs and the reality that they have pretty much taxed out their citizens.

The notion that Europeanizing the US is a good thing can only be expressed by Europeans who would like to see the US sink to their level or by Americans who are ignorant of the FACTS.

A great article expressing the faults of Universal care and how to make America's system far better:

June 13, 2007
Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation
by The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D., Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner
Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation

Well let’s look at some statistics.

The USA health care system is the most costly

Expenditure Per Capita current us$ by country. Definition, graph and map.

% Of GDP > Expenditure, Total statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of countries including most Europeans have more hospital beds per 1000 people than USA

Per 1,000 People > Hospital Beds statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of European countries have more physicians than USA per 1000 people

Physicians per 1,000 people (most recent) by country

The same then it comes to nurses.

Nurses (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a lower infant mortality birth than USA

Infant Mortality Rate total (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a higher life expectancy than USA

Total Population > Life Expectancy At Birth statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
 
Last edited:
No, stupid southerners and foreign auto companies killed the big three, along with bad strategy.

This is false on a number of levels. Southerners are not stupid, and the fact that they do not unionize is certainly not the reason GM is failing. Most parts suppliers in Michigan don't want to be in a union, because we just do not like what the UAW is or represents.

Foreign auto makers only killed GM in that they have, some of them, been more successful than GM. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work. The fact that some of those same foreign auto makers supply many jobs to the US is worth noting as well. When I am not laid off, I make parts for Toyota(and GM, and Chrysler).

Bad strategy, now that I do agree with. Add in a bad economy, which, if it did not cause this, certainly rushed the inevitable, and made it worse fast.
 
I can not for the life of me understand . . .
This part appears to be the nucleus of your argument.

Try this. A labor union is extortion by another name, and a goodly number of people don't want to belong, and I do mean belong to what by rights should be considered a criminal enterprise.
 
Last edited:
Well let’s look at some statistics.

The USA health care system is the most costly

Expenditure Per Capita current us$ by country. Definition, graph and map.

% Of GDP > Expenditure, Total statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of countries including most Europeans have more hospital beds per 1000 people than USA

Per 1,000 People > Hospital Beds statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of European countries have more physicians than USA per 1000 people

Physicians per 1,000 people (most recent) by country

The same then it comes to nurses.

Nurses (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a lower infant mortality birth than USA

Infant Mortality Rate total (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a higher life expectancy than USA

Total Population > Life Expectancy At Birth statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Dont tell them the obvious.. this is not about what is the best and cheapest, but about a hard nosed political ideology regardless of the facts.. they are after all "conservative" and dont like change.
 
Wrong. It's the lack of unionization by the ignorant southerners and foreign companies.

I can not for the life of me understand the mentality that says 'I will fight to get paid less and accept fewer benefits than a union worker doing the same job.' So that CEOs and shareholders can make more money... baffling. :confused:
A union's primary job is to get its memebers the most money for the least amount of work possible. This is NEVER good for business as it raises costs and lowers productivity.

So, the 'unionize the competition' is a solution only in the sense that it acts to bring everyone down to GM's level rather than strengthening GM's ability to compete.
 
Dont tell them the obvious.. this is not about what is the best and cheapest, but about a hard nosed political ideology regardless of the facts.. they are after all "conservative" and dont like change.

Just because you have beds doesn't mean you have care.
Look at who survives when they are ill with cancer let's say.

What about results?
Europe’s survival rates are lower than in the US, where 66.3 per cent of men and 62.9 per cent of women survive for five years, compared with 47.3 per cent of European men and 55.8 per cent of women.
Political Calculations: Surviving Cancer: US vs Europe

I'll pay more thanks and not have to wait for government to tell me they are ready to accept me.

.
 
Last edited:
A union's primary job is to get its memebers the most money for the least amount of work possible. This is NEVER good for business as it raises costs and lowers productivity.

So, the 'unionize the competition' is a solution only in the sense that it acts to bring everyone down to GM's level rather than strengthening GM's ability to compete.

That would be a perversion of what a union should be...kinda like the UAW I admit, but still...

What a union should be, and what I would actually not mind having, is an organization that represents the workers and helps give them more of a bargaining position. Every one should have some one on their side, unions should be that for workers.

Unfortunately, this does not work well in practice.
 
That would be a perversion of what a union should be...kinda like the UAW I admit, but still...
It may be a perversion of what it should be, but it is exactly what it is.

What a union should be, and what I would actually not mind having, is an organization that represents the workers and helps give them more of a bargaining position.
A bargaining position.... to what end?
 
It may be a perversion of what it should be, but it is exactly what it is.


A bargaining position.... to what end?

To the end that without some form of collective bargaining, the power of the worker is much smaller than the power of employers in determining salary. It is in the best interest of the employer to play as little as it can, while it is in the interest of the worker to get as much as they can get. In most nonunion shops, the employer holds most of the cards in any negotiation involving nonskilled labor(I hate that term, as we do have skills, just that they are fairly common)), except in times of very low unemployment.
 
To the end that without some form of collective bargaining, the power of the worker is much smaller than the power of employers in determining salary. It is in the best interest of the employer to play as little as it can, while it is in the interest of the worker to get as much as they can get.
So... the objective of banding together in a union IS to get as much pay as possible for the least work possibe.

As I said -- this is bad for business, and trying to unionize the competition in order to make GM more competitive is no different than raising average class scores by making the tests easier.
 
So... the objective of banding together in a union IS to get as much pay as possible for the least work possibe.

As I said -- this is bad for business, and trying to unionize the competition in order to make GM more competitive is no different than raising average class scores by making the tests easier.

Not "as possible", but "as is reasonable".
 
we sure got a great contract with terrific benefits
too bad it cost so much teh business is out of business
so i have no job
I have no benefits
thank god for my union
/sarcasm
 
Not "as possible", but "as is reasonable".
Not sure there is a difference.
When did a union not ask for more money when its contract came up?
When did a union not counter with a higher number when it was asked to take concessions?
 
It may be a perversion of what it should be, but it is exactly what it is.


A bargaining position.... to what end?

What about the folks that would rather work for a little less?
They don't have that "right"?
They have to be organized for their best interests.
That is in their best interests?

And what do you make of Obama wanting open union votes?
It's one thing to vote for it in a private vote, but to make votes public?
Intimidation.

Legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to hold a private ballot vote in unionization drives, which critics say would lead to harassment and intimidation, has spurred a pitched battle between powerful labor unions supportive of Sen. Barack Obama and big business in the presidential campaign.

"We're ready to play offense for organized labor. It's time we had a president who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers," Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

"I will make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States," Mr. Obama told the labor federation.
Obama supports union organizing - Washington Times
 
Back
Top Bottom