Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 411 To 420 Of 839 Comments
Rick:
There's nothing even a tiny bit radical here. Chrysler was going broke because they made lousy cars, had too many dealers, and we alone among major auto-producing companies pile all the health costs on private companies.
The only reason there will be any Chrysler dealers a year from now is because of Obama and the American taxpayer. In what universe is it radical to try and save the workers (including the workers at dealerships) from the staggering, decades-long incompetence of Chrysler management?
Radicalism? Gangsterism? Puh-leeze. Let's remember that Chrysler and GM went broke under the Bush administration. Just another GOP mess we're stuck cleaning up.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.05.2009 @ 21:59
What a load.
Either Chrysler was going to go bankrupt and entirely out of business leaving EVERY Chrysler dealer out of business.
Or, the USG was going to step in with loans and support and save not just UAW jobs but many Chrysler dealers.
Those were the choices. All dealers out of business or some dealers out of business.
Of course Republican free marketeers preferred option "A." Which makes complaints about the fate of this dealer ridiculous. You are simultaneously decrying government intervention and seeming to ask for more and concluding from this mish-mash that Obama is a gangster.
Incidentally, the only reason a lot of these dealers have stayed in business over the years is state government intervention on their behalf. They've been regulated into business to the detriment of the parent company. The dealers being dropped are being dropped because their business no longer makes sense for Chrysler and probably hasn't made sense for a decade or more.
Gangsterism, socialism, communism, fascism, Islamism . . . I'm losing count of the "ism's" your party has tried to affix to Obama. He's naive, no wait he's not, he's smart, stupid, radical, just like Bush, a racist, a terrorist, too angry, too cool. . .
It would probably help if you could unify your name-calling efforts. It wouldn't help you beat Obama but you'd look slightly less ridiculous while trying.
1. Chrysler would have gone bankrupt but had a plan that the government rejected. It could have been the greatest plan in history and it still would have been rejected because in case you haven't noticed, Obama thinks he can remake the auto industry and independent companies are not part of that plan. It isn't that chrysler is sloughing off dealers, its that the stock buyback would be a pittance compared to what the feds have paid out already.
2. I worked for a car dealership for a time and I know the difficulties involved. Smaller outfits were being squeezed by the big lots while the supplier always favored the biggies because they moved product. The "intervention" of which you speak was mostly to protect consumers - not dealers.
3. How long are you going to try to convince everyone that Obama is just a moderate, nothing radical about him? And btw, I saw this Chicago style political mind before he was even given any chance at all. These threats of blackmail, muscling banks, and other gangster tactics are straight from the Machine's way of doing business. And Obama has said continuously that it's not all about the economy, that he is using the Bush crisis to remake America. That's not radical? Try again.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.05.2009 @ 12:21
THE ABSOLUTE WORST NIGERIAN EMAIL SCAM IN HISTORY
What was it that made you suspicious?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 20.05.2009 @ 15:40
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
Mark:
A good example of why I never really get mad at libertarians, although I think they're naive. Your hearts are usually in the right place.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 19.05.2009 @ 21:16
Kreiz:
Heh. Yeah, well, I write it mostly by not writing it. I'm hoping it will learn to write itself.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 19.05.2009 @ 20:16
I think I see the problem here. It's not just a question of moderation or even of pragmatism. It's not just the dead weight of the theocons.
Core Republican ideology is outdated in many ways.
We are never going to have a libertarian utopia, and we're not even going to have a really small government. As long as we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the world's dominant military we're going to have a government far larger than the GOP wet dream.
We'll have that large government because that's what people want, and that's what is appropriate for a modern, urbanized society. It's not the 19th century any more. This isn't Thom Jefferson's world anymore. We have no gentlemen farmers.
We are also going to allow gay marriage and continue to allow abortion. We aren't going to put prayer back in schools.
The Democrats have already conceded on gun ownership and a strong defense. So you guys won those. Now that they're won, you lost them as issues.
The intellectual property you have left isn't working. You need to recognize that. You're selling Dictaphones in the age of the iPhone. That's why it's so hard for Republican pragmatists to come up with a policy agenda: because your core beliefs are only incrementally more relevant than the idiocies of the theocons.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 19.05.2009 @ 12:48
REPORT FROM THE FRONT: PRAGMATISTS HAVE NO SOUL
You have a Vette? Damn, I want a Vette. When you have kids you can't have a cool car because all the really cool cars have no back seat.
Oh, and the rest of the post is great.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 18.05.2009 @ 12:26
CBO ESTIMATES ON OBAMACARE TOP $1 TRILLION
don’t pretent there isn’t a cost-adder for Government-run over market-based. There is, and it is huge.
Prove it.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 18.05.2009 @ 10:01
Freedoms Truth:
What is your basis for concluding that the French health care system does not work?
The French have a slightly longer life expectancy than we do. The French people consistently rate their system highly. They pay far less as a percentage of GDP than we do. And they fill out no paperwork, never engage in death-bed struggles with insurance companies, and their doctors don't have to hire full-time employees just to wrestle with insurance companies.
So on what basis do you reach the conclusion that their system does not work?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 18.05.2009 @ 09:59
In what specific way is it awful? Most of us will agree that it is expensive and services are not delivered equitably to all residents of our country. On the other hand, it produces remarkable innovation and is the envy of the world for treatment of many life threatening diseases and conditions.
Well, in those specific ways, for a start: it is expensive and doesn't serve all the people.
You're absolutely right that it creates amazing techniques and equipment. But those businesses wouldn't be affected by making the family doctor a government employee. You're conflating two very different elements: research and development, much of which by the way is already carried out by the government, and health care delivery. My pediatrician just discovers ear infections, he doesn't do a lot of tinkering with new machinery.
I don't have a health care plan in mind. I'm just questioning assumptions.
As for your Dell example, I'd say you make my point. I use Apple products exclusively because they're better, and the service is better, and I can afford it. So, yes, I have lots of choices and I can choose to get much better computers or cars or health care than most people. Goody for me.
The problem is that many people are priced out entirely, so they get little or no health care.
I'm suggesting that even poor people should have a right to decent medical care. I'm not saying they each need the private room I might get, but they need to be taken care of. Their wounds need to be treated, they need shots, they need prenatal care, they need chemo and operations and all the rest.
I don't see why ensuring that working class people get medical care is disadvantageous to me except for the increased taxes. As I've made clear, I understand that it will cost me, and I am willing to help with that.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 18.05.2009 @ 09:54
