Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

If you want to look at policy, that's understandable, but the thing to not do is enact a policy that is designed to screw us over. As much as you don't want conservatives to live in the 1950's, I don't want liberals to continue to live in the 1900's. We're at the point where people are educated enough to make good decisions about their careers and health (at least I would think), so perhaps it's time to back off on some of the legislation. Back off on the minimum wage requirements, as that will help to allow more people to be hired instead of causing an artificial price floor. Also, no more bailouts or government takeovers. If they fail, let them fail. The government is getting to the point where it itself is becoming a monopoly, and should be under the audition of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Sorry Flag but the notion that we'd be better off if all the big banks fell in a panic sell off and the auto industry went too just so we'd be in compliance with conservative orthodoxy makes zero sense. We're not in a classroom here. We're talking in the real world. I'm perfectly happy to give Bush credit where its due. Every major world economy acted to shore up its banks. Why? Because unless you want us to go back to the barter system you need financial institutions. The cost to the US in the grand scheme of things was minimal, and millions of jobs were saved. Having spoken with my grandparents who were in the work force during the Great Depression I can tell you we should be in no hurry to bring about another one.

No bailouts is a great slogan. Unfortunately in extreme cases (once every 70 years hopefully) it needs to happen for the greater good. No good would come out of not having a banking industry in the US anymore unless you are fluent in Mandarin and therefore would be able to get a mortgage from the only remaining financial institutions worldwide.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Can't say what the standard for "fine" shape is but I'll define what I think about it.

1) Company is profitable to a significant degree (7.6Bn last year I believe)

2) Company is far better off than pre-bankrupcy where too much debt and bad deals with workers was strangling company (now #1 automaker again).

3) US Govt will end up making money on the deal in total even if selling the stock at a loss.

Somebody asked me if I have bought GM stock. I actually bought Ford stock, for one simple reason which was Ford was trading @ 2X earnings while GM was higher. Unfortunately for me Ford is STILL trading at 2X earnings but c'est la vie. GM is now a viable going concern, and who among us would have thought that three years ago? The notion that its about to become bankrupt again is from one conservative Club for Growth hack writing for Forbes who has no insight into the industry.

I bought some Ford when it was at $2. Sold it WAY too early, but it was still at a profit, so I'm not going to complain about it. A positive gain is a positive gain.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Sorry Flag but the notion that we'd be better off if all the big banks fell in a panic sell off and the auto industry went too just so we'd be in compliance with conservative orthodoxy makes zero sense. We're not in a classroom here. We're talking in the real world. I'm perfectly happy to give Bush credit where its due. Every major world economy acted to shore up its banks. Why? Because unless you want us to go back to the barter system you need financial institutions. The cost to the US in the grand scheme of things was minimal, and millions of jobs were saved. Having spoken with my grandparents who were in the work force during the Great Depression I can tell you we should be in no hurry to bring about another one.

No bailouts is a great slogan. Unfortunately in extreme cases (once every 70 years hopefully) it needs to happen for the greater good. No good would come out of not having a banking industry in the US anymore unless you are fluent in Mandarin and therefore would be able to get a mortgage from the only remaining financial institutions worldwide.

Although the FDIC exists, banks are still authorised to stop all payments when they see a panic, so the insurance is really just a bunch of BS, like most government stuff is. One thing that did exist during the New Deal was the split of financial institutions going across state lines. I'm not saying that we should have something as drastic as that, but bringing some redundancy to our system and removing the "single point of failure" is a good idea. Cheques and balances, as it were. Look at what's failing the EU: the ECB. It's a single point of failure requiring every tension cable (read: country) to be strong. We can't have states create their own money because it's not allowed by the Constitution. I'm not even sure if regional currencies would be allowed (each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks). One thing I am certain of, though, is the USA is just too gosh darn large to be federally governed as it is now.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

By single payer, you mean you want mommy and daddy government to give you everything, similar to exactly how Medicare works. Death panels, here we come.

Over the current system? In a heartbeat! Medicare for all is aok by me, cover the basics and let people buy supplements if they want more. And while I giggle at the idea of death panels (which, if you want to be serious exist now anyways since every insurance company has a committee that decides who gets what care and why) in the way Sarah "I Really Am this Stupid" Palin talked about them I have no problem with rationing care to a point.

Anything is better than the current system...anything.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The "death panels" demagoguery probably set back health care in this country by twenty years, if not more.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Can't say what the standard for "fine" shape is but I'll define what I think about it.

1) Company is profitable to a significant degree (7.6Bn last year I believe)

2) Company is far better off than pre-bankrupcy where too much debt and bad deals with workers was strangling company (now #1 automaker again).

3) US Govt will end up making money on the deal in total even if selling the stock at a loss.

Somebody asked me if I have bought GM stock. I actually bought Ford stock, for one simple reason which was Ford was trading @ 2X earnings while GM was higher. Unfortunately for me Ford is STILL trading at 2X earnings but c'est la vie. GM is now a viable going concern, and who among us would have thought that three years ago? The notion that its about to become bankrupt again is from one conservative Club for Growth hack writing for Forbes who has no insight into the industry.

I'll take that as a No.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Over the current system? In a heartbeat! Medicare for all is aok by me, cover the basics and let people buy supplements if they want more. And while I giggle at the idea of death panels (which, if you want to be serious exist now anyways since every insurance company has a committee that decides who gets what care and why) in the way Sarah "I Really Am this Stupid" Palin talked about them I have no problem with rationing care to a point.

Anything is better than the current system...anything.

You do know that it's a felony to supplement payment for a procedure or good that is covered by Medicare whilst you are currently covered by Medicare, yes? That was placed into law in 1997.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

You do know that it's a felony to supplement payment for a procedure or good that is covered by Medicare whilst you are currently covered by Medicare, yes? That was placed into law in 1997.

No I didnt...but then again if Single Payer came about I am guessing that law would go away

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

No I didnt...but then again if Single Payer came about I am guessing that law would go away

Medigap insurance isn't illegal though. I see he forgot to tell you that.

Medicare provides a whole lot of coverage, but it doesn't cover everything. So some people choose to buy a separate policy to provide coverage for the areas Medicare falls short on. This is known as Medigap insurance. You buy Medigap from a private insurance company.

You can also use your Medigap policy to cover expenses you have under Medicare, such as annual co-pays and deductibles.

Important note: If you opt for a Medicare Advantage Plan (Medicare Part C), any Medigap policy you have won't pay out. So if you decide to move into a Medicare Advantage Plan and you already have a Medigap policy, drop the Medigap.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Look, "Medicare for all" is a slogan...I dont actually want that I want universal health care which is similar but most likely better. If Congress gets it so should we!

Of course that wont happen since our leaders wouldnt even give the first responders on 9/11 coverage

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

No I didnt...but then again if Single Payer came about I am guessing that law would go away

The chances of that are about as good as me winning the Miss America pageant, and I'm a dude.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Medigap insurance isn't illegal though. I see he forgot to tell you that.

Once again, you have shown that you did not read what I said. What I said was that if I wanted a Claritin pill, and it was covered by Medicare (by whatever plan it is, assume that I have it), it would be a felony for me to pay for the Claritin pill out of pocket. I would be forced to wait for Medicare to fund the bill for the Claritin pill.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

After all, GW Bush fully endorsed this crappy misguided bailout in the first place so you could just as easily call the bailout "conservative philosophy", right?

There was nothing economiclaly conservative about Jr.

re: Audi/German engineering

Had two Audi's in the 90's and until I feel otherwise I'll stick to Lexus/Acura/Infiniti

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Once again, you have shown that you did not read what I said. What I said was that if I wanted a Claritin pill, and it was covered by Medicare (by whatever plan it is, assume that I have it), it would be a felony for me to pay for the Claritin pill out of pocket. I would be forced to wait for Medicare to fund the bill for the Claritin pill.

And I'll bet that rule is in place because someone found a way to screw the system up. Just like all the other "rules" that are passed. Maybe we wouldn't have needed all these new banking rules if the morons running the banks hadn't run the entire economic system of the world into a cliff.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

And I'll bet that rule is in place because someone found a way to screw the system up. Just like all the other "rules" that are passed. Maybe we wouldn't have needed all these new banking rules if the morons running the banks hadn't run the entire economic system of the world into a cliff.

Earlier today, TCM showed the Tracy/Hepburn movie "Pat and Mike." At one point, Hepburn suggests to an old lady that she "lift the needle on that long playing record in your face."

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

2004 Audi A4. I've had a series of repairs. But man, can that car corner.

You want reliability...its pretty much Japanese.

At last count over the years we have had 41 cars. Too exhaustive a list to post but more than 20 German. Have to agree-if you want reliability and a car that will just start and run most of the time then you go Japanese. If you want a fun car to drive, one that handles well, a great car for bad weather driving and with a solid feel-you go German. Every car is individual and you can always have problems. But for the the type of driving we do (with lots of Northeast weather), we have found the Audi to just be far and above the others with their version of AWD. Early ones were extremely reliable. Then a number of years of models with problems. But the more recent releases are back to a higher standard. For those with any doubts-go test drive the 2013 A6 Prestige with the full Innovation package.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

a great car for bad weather driving...-you go German.

Totally OT:

I assume you're limiting the eval to sedans, because frankly I'm surprised by that statement. Sheer "driveability"-wise, most know that BMW, Audi, and Porsche are traditionally the gold standard, but I would not expect any of those luxury/performance vehicles to do well in regular snow & ice conditions, as I always assumed they were built with average weather in mind.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I would never take a German auto for poor-weather driving - at least MN style. Cripes you'd think Volvo or Saab would do well also but they just don't cut the mustard. Sorry but give me American or Japanese in the winter every time and I bet of the best non-truck performers in the winter you'd be hard pressed to find more than one from Europe rated.

 

[state of hockey]

Romney only paid 13% of his income in taxes one year. I paid more than that in payroll taxes.

I pay more than that, and I am barely eligible. I am a bee sting away from financial disaster.

 

[mookie1995]

I pay more than that, and I am barely eligible. I am a bee sting away from financial disaster.

Standard deduction.... Go get some stuff!