over the last 2 years, premiums have gone up at a slower rate then at any other time in recent history.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Claims He Saved The Auto Industry And Wants To Do The Same In Every Industry
- Thread starter mudwhistle
- Start date
over the last 2 years, premiums have gone up at a slower rate then at any other time in recent history.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #22
Mainstream Republicans believe nothing of the sort.
"Lone Flame"? That's your source? Mainstream Republicans don't believe in what such rags write.
Jake.....everyone by now knows that Obama is talking this crapola right now. The quote is accurate.
Obama wants to take over every industry the way he took over GM and Chrysler.
- Thread starter
- #23
One provision of Obamacare requires insurance companies to keep people on their parents plan until they are 26. So no tax $ are going towards their healthcare and it is made affordable, covering many more people.
Sort of a triple whammy.
Triple whammy is right.
If you notice your premiums going up then you can thank Obama.
Another provision that went into effect is the 85% rule. The insurance company must use 85% of their income paying benefits or return it. But to whom? Not to us. I've already been notified that some of my premiums have been returned but never saw a dime of it. Still I have to pay the same or greater amount every paycheck.
What this leads to is cost-cutting by insurance companies which results in fewer jobs since 30% of any business's overhead is wages and benefits. They always start cutting there.
over the last 2 years, premiums have gone up at a slower rate then at any other time in recent history.
I'm sure you can prove that too?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #24
yes, I am with mud, I want to see that link.
- Thread starter
- #25
Mainstream Republicans believe nothing of the sort.
"Lone Flame"? That's your source? Mainstream Republicans don't believe in what such rags write.
Jake.....everyone by now knows that Obama is talking this crapola right now. The quote is accurate.
Obama wants to take over every industry the way he took over GM and Chrysler.
And you speak for them?
FYI, Obama and Biden spoke about it this weekend.
Why do you think I brought it up in the first place.
ba1614
Silver Member
Anyone paying attention should be aware of it. The progressive wet dream is to nationalize everything, tax everyone at 100% and distribute whatever little pittance they feel the lowly populace deserve. All for our own good of course.
The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
- 2,405
Obama put the taxpayers on the hook to reward his friends in the United Auto Workers' Union. In the process of rewarding his political friends, he hurt a lot of other people involved with GM. Here is part of an article written by Michelle Malkin
Bondholders standing up for their property and contractual rights got shortchanged and demonized personally by the President. Dealers and suppliers faced closures based on political connections and lobbying clout rather than neutral efficiency evaluations. As I first reported in September 2010, in the rush to nationalize the auto industry and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with big labor bosses to preserve UAW members' costly pension funds by shafting their non-union counterparts
These forgotten nonunion pensioners (who worked for the Delphi/GM auto parts company) lost all of their health and life insurance benefits. Hailing from the economically devastated Rust Belt northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states the Delphi workers had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees. Some have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish. Theyve banded together to seek justice in court and on Capitol Hill under the banner of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association.
The rest of this article can be read at the following link:
Michelle Malkin » The Autoworkers Obama Left Behind
In another article on the subject, Michelle Malkin described the personal hardships faced by the 20,000 non-union GM/Delphi workers. Here are a few examples of what these workers had to say:
Im one of the Delphi Salaried Retirees that lost the health care, life insurance and 67 percent of the pension I was promised in retirement after working hard for 40 years, Charles Stone of Michigan e-mailed. Words cannot describe the frustration and let down these events have thrust on my familys lives, and to have GMs rescue all sugar-coated in the current political environment is like putting lipstick on a pig. We will continue to fight to right this grievous wrong.
Tom Rose of Ohio added: I am one of the 20,000 salaried retirees that lost all of my health care and in my case a 40 percent pension cut. So I am now paying increased health care costs with fewer pension dollars and contributing what is left to our lawsuit to correct this injustice. Meanwhile, the politically connected union has their full pension and 90-plus percent of their health care. You have hit upon the key question: How can our own federal government pick winners and losers amongst its own citizens?
Michelle Malkin » Meet the real workers Obama screwed over
When Obama suggested that he bail out other industries the way he did at GM, I laughed out loud. Obama is strictly looney tunes and if he does for the rest of U.S. industries what he did for GM, we're all in big trouble.
Bondholders standing up for their property and contractual rights got shortchanged and demonized personally by the President. Dealers and suppliers faced closures based on political connections and lobbying clout rather than neutral efficiency evaluations. As I first reported in September 2010, in the rush to nationalize the auto industry and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with big labor bosses to preserve UAW members' costly pension funds by shafting their non-union counterparts
These forgotten nonunion pensioners (who worked for the Delphi/GM auto parts company) lost all of their health and life insurance benefits. Hailing from the economically devastated Rust Belt northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states the Delphi workers had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees. Some have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish. Theyve banded together to seek justice in court and on Capitol Hill under the banner of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association.
The rest of this article can be read at the following link:
Michelle Malkin » The Autoworkers Obama Left Behind
In another article on the subject, Michelle Malkin described the personal hardships faced by the 20,000 non-union GM/Delphi workers. Here are a few examples of what these workers had to say:
Im one of the Delphi Salaried Retirees that lost the health care, life insurance and 67 percent of the pension I was promised in retirement after working hard for 40 years, Charles Stone of Michigan e-mailed. Words cannot describe the frustration and let down these events have thrust on my familys lives, and to have GMs rescue all sugar-coated in the current political environment is like putting lipstick on a pig. We will continue to fight to right this grievous wrong.
Tom Rose of Ohio added: I am one of the 20,000 salaried retirees that lost all of my health care and in my case a 40 percent pension cut. So I am now paying increased health care costs with fewer pension dollars and contributing what is left to our lawsuit to correct this injustice. Meanwhile, the politically connected union has their full pension and 90-plus percent of their health care. You have hit upon the key question: How can our own federal government pick winners and losers amongst its own citizens?
Michelle Malkin » Meet the real workers Obama screwed over
When Obama suggested that he bail out other industries the way he did at GM, I laughed out loud. Obama is strictly looney tunes and if he does for the rest of U.S. industries what he did for GM, we're all in big trouble.
The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
- 2,405
GM is not doing well at all, and this is despite and the Government's own purchase of GM vehicles including the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt. The following article explains the secret of Obama's success with GM:
Seton Motely
July 10, 2012
We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.
Meaning Barack Obama is now campaigning on the success of - the government buying cars from...the governments car company. With our money.
Thats like you setting up a lemonade stand for your kids. You buy them the lemons, sugar, cups and pitchers - and then buy most of the lemonade yourself.
Except you are President Obama. Your kids are the United Autoworkers Union. And the lemonade cost $50 billion.
At least you get to tax your neighbors for the $50 billion.
Again - in what Bizarro-world is this auto bailout the success the Jurassic Press [liberal media] incessantly reports it is?
Media Fail: Government Motors Inflates Sales by Selling to...the Government | NewsBusters.org
Note: explanatory insertion ([liberal media]) is my own.
Seton Motely
July 10, 2012
We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.
Meaning Barack Obama is now campaigning on the success of - the government buying cars from...the governments car company. With our money.
Thats like you setting up a lemonade stand for your kids. You buy them the lemons, sugar, cups and pitchers - and then buy most of the lemonade yourself.
Except you are President Obama. Your kids are the United Autoworkers Union. And the lemonade cost $50 billion.
At least you get to tax your neighbors for the $50 billion.
Again - in what Bizarro-world is this auto bailout the success the Jurassic Press [liberal media] incessantly reports it is?
Media Fail: Government Motors Inflates Sales by Selling to...the Government | NewsBusters.org
Note: explanatory insertion ([liberal media]) is my own.
The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
- 2,405
I am a conservative, and I want GM to succeed; however, success comes only when a company provides a product of competitive qualify at a competitive price. The public may by duped at least temporarily by creative advertising, but only to a point. Eventually, the concepts of quality and price become the controlling factors in consumer choices. When government subsidizes a product, the true cost includes not only the purchase price but also the amount of the subsidy which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers.
You think that ALL bankruptcies are a bad thing but it ain't so, Joe. Bankruptcies have salvaged many failing companies by giving them a chance to reorganize and begin anew. Contrary to complaints from liberals, there is no evidence that jobs were saved by the bailout. If GM had gone through normal bankruptcy procedures, they would have been able to restructure the UAW wages and benefits package to make GM competitive again. Not only would everyone's job be saved, but it is even possible that reduced manufacturing costs would have increased sales resulting in even more employment at GM. What, you didn't know that lower cost can lead to more sales and more employment?
Also, had GM gone completely down the tube no one knows how many total jobs would have been lost. My best guess would be . none. If consumers cannot buy GM cars, they will purchase another type of vehicle which means other companies will have to hire more people. Consumers are not going to start walking and taking public transportation just because they cannot buy a GM car. When the government intervenes to help one car company, all other auto makers suffer as a result.
No one mourns the loss of all those blacksmiths jobs lost as a result of the automotive industry, and many big name companies have folded over the years due to changing consumer demand. If GM bites the dust, that's what is called the survival of the fittest. Competition without government favoritism is the best thing going for consumers. Only open and honest competition can assure the public of the best quality at the lowest price.
This concept of too big to fail is not just stupid, it is totally insane. Any company that cannot withstand competition deserves to fail. The bigger the company is, the more foolish it is to expect the public to support it with taxpayer-funded subsidies. Competition is something that should only be feared by businesses, never by consumers.
You think that ALL bankruptcies are a bad thing but it ain't so, Joe. Bankruptcies have salvaged many failing companies by giving them a chance to reorganize and begin anew. Contrary to complaints from liberals, there is no evidence that jobs were saved by the bailout. If GM had gone through normal bankruptcy procedures, they would have been able to restructure the UAW wages and benefits package to make GM competitive again. Not only would everyone's job be saved, but it is even possible that reduced manufacturing costs would have increased sales resulting in even more employment at GM. What, you didn't know that lower cost can lead to more sales and more employment?
Also, had GM gone completely down the tube no one knows how many total jobs would have been lost. My best guess would be . none. If consumers cannot buy GM cars, they will purchase another type of vehicle which means other companies will have to hire more people. Consumers are not going to start walking and taking public transportation just because they cannot buy a GM car. When the government intervenes to help one car company, all other auto makers suffer as a result.
No one mourns the loss of all those blacksmiths jobs lost as a result of the automotive industry, and many big name companies have folded over the years due to changing consumer demand. If GM bites the dust, that's what is called the survival of the fittest. Competition without government favoritism is the best thing going for consumers. Only open and honest competition can assure the public of the best quality at the lowest price.
This concept of too big to fail is not just stupid, it is totally insane. Any company that cannot withstand competition deserves to fail. The bigger the company is, the more foolish it is to expect the public to support it with taxpayer-funded subsidies. Competition is something that should only be feared by businesses, never by consumers.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #30
A far right out of the mainstream extremist like you do not talk for mainstream Republicans.
Mainstream Republicans believe nothing of the sort.
Jake.....everyone by now knows that Obama is talking this crapola right now. The quote is accurate.
Obama wants to take over every industry the way he took over GM and Chrysler.
And you speak for them?
FYI, Obama and Biden spoke about it this weekend.
Why do you think I brought it up in the first place.
- Thread starter
- #31
Don't mention Obama taking insurance away from people. The left will never believe it.
But you'd better bet Romney wants to.
But you'd better bet Romney wants to.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #32
Here is an assertion without evidence "When the government intervenes to help one car company, all other auto makers suffer as a result." Give us some examples.
I am a conservative, and I want GM to succeed; however, success comes only when a company provides a product of competitive qualify at a competitive price. The public may by duped at least temporarily by creative advertising, but only to a point. Eventually, the concepts of quality and price become the controlling factors in consumer choices. When government subsidizes a product, the true cost includes not only the purchase price but also the amount of the subsidy which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers.
You think that ALL bankruptcies are a bad thing but it ain't so, Joe. Bankruptcies have salvaged many failing companies by giving them a chance to reorganize and begin anew. Contrary to complaints from liberals, there is no evidence that jobs were saved by the bailout. If GM had gone through normal bankruptcy procedures, they would have been able to restructure the UAW wages and benefits package to make GM competitive again. Not only would everyone's job be saved, but it is even possible that reduced manufacturing costs would have increased sales resulting in even more employment at GM. What, you didn't know that lower cost can lead to more sales and more employment?
Also, had GM gone completely down the tube no one knows how many total jobs would have been lost. My best guess would be . none. If consumers cannot buy GM cars, they will purchase another type of vehicle which means other companies will have to hire more people. Consumers are not going to start walking and taking public transportation just because they cannot buy a GM car. When the government intervenes to help one car company, all other auto makers suffer as a result.
No one mourns the loss of all those blacksmiths jobs lost as a result of the automotive industry, and many big name companies have folded over the years due to changing consumer demand. If GM bites the dust, that's what is called the survival of the fittest. Competition without government favoritism is the best thing going for consumers. Only open and honest competition can assure the public of the best quality at the lowest price.
This concept of too big to fail is not just stupid, it is totally insane. Any company that cannot withstand competition deserves to fail. The bigger the company is, the more foolish it is to expect the public to support it with taxpayer-funded subsidies. Competition is something that should only be feared by businesses, never by consumers.
LogikAndReazon
Gold Member
- Feb 21, 2012
- 5,351
- 668
- 190
This is Obamanomics at work. Make a worthless POS hybrid -- not to make a profit but to employ union auto workers.
Reuters:
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.
And while the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and sold, GM is still years away from making money on the Volt, which will soon face new competitors from Ford, Honda and others.
GM's basic problem is that "the Volt is over-engineered and over-priced," said Dennis Virag, president of the Michigan-based Automotive Consulting Group.
And in a sign that there may be a wider market problem, Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi have been struggling to sell their electric and hybrid vehicles, though Toyota's Prius range has been in increasing demand.
GM's quandary is how to increase sales volume so that it can spread its estimated $1.2-billion investment in the Volt over more vehicles while reducing manufacturing and component costs - which will be difficult to bring down until sales increase.
But the Volt's steep $39,995 base price and its complex technology - the car uses expensive lithium-polymer batteries, sophisticated electronics and an electric motor combined with a gasoline engine - have kept many prospective buyers away from Chevy showrooms.
Some are put off by the technical challenges of ownership, mainly related to charging the battery. Plug-in hybrids such as the Volt still take hours to fully charge the batteries - a process that can been speeded up a bit with the installation of a $2,000 commercial-grade charger in the garage.
I don't know about you, but one thing that definitely puts me off about the Volt is that it sometimes catches fire for no apparent reason. They say they've fixed that little problem but frankly, GM's credibilty on anything relating to the Volt is just about zero.
Read more: Blog: GM loses $49,000 on each Chevy Volt it sells
Reuters:
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.
And while the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and sold, GM is still years away from making money on the Volt, which will soon face new competitors from Ford, Honda and others.
GM's basic problem is that "the Volt is over-engineered and over-priced," said Dennis Virag, president of the Michigan-based Automotive Consulting Group.
And in a sign that there may be a wider market problem, Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi have been struggling to sell their electric and hybrid vehicles, though Toyota's Prius range has been in increasing demand.
GM's quandary is how to increase sales volume so that it can spread its estimated $1.2-billion investment in the Volt over more vehicles while reducing manufacturing and component costs - which will be difficult to bring down until sales increase.
But the Volt's steep $39,995 base price and its complex technology - the car uses expensive lithium-polymer batteries, sophisticated electronics and an electric motor combined with a gasoline engine - have kept many prospective buyers away from Chevy showrooms.
Some are put off by the technical challenges of ownership, mainly related to charging the battery. Plug-in hybrids such as the Volt still take hours to fully charge the batteries - a process that can been speeded up a bit with the installation of a $2,000 commercial-grade charger in the garage.
I don't know about you, but one thing that definitely puts me off about the Volt is that it sometimes catches fire for no apparent reason. They say they've fixed that little problem but frankly, GM's credibilty on anything relating to the Volt is just about zero.
Read more: Blog: GM loses $49,000 on each Chevy Volt it sells
Name one person?
My son.
How old is he?
Did Obama actually pay for his insurance or did you?
One provision of Obamacare requires insurance companies to keep people on their parents plan until they are 26. So no tax $ are going towards their healthcare and it is made affordable, covering many more people.
Sort of a triple whammy.
It surely wasn't political to ensure that provisions that many people would like, would kick in immediately, while all of the provisions and taxes that people will not like are timed not to appear before this next election.
You are just getting kissed before the rape begins.
- Thread starter
- #36
obama did not save the auto industry. The auto industry was doing just fine without him.
It was a scam to use government bailouts to save union benefits.
This is not going the way the libs wanted I can see.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #37
tsk tsk tsk . . . not true, guys, and you know it.
You are part of the John Oliver Syndrome, which insists you can alter the actual narrative of the past by simply changing the narrative (without facts), and when called on it, you yell, "But I can change that" by lying.
tsk tsk tsk
You are part of the John Oliver Syndrome, which insists you can alter the actual narrative of the past by simply changing the narrative (without facts), and when called on it, you yell, "But I can change that" by lying.
tsk tsk tsk
- Thread starter
- #38
tsk tsk tsk . . . not true, guys, and you know it.
You are part of the John Oliver Syndrome, which insists you can alter the actual narrative of the past by simply changing the narrative (without facts), and when called on it, you yell, "But I can change that" by lying.
tsk tsk tsk
You would know!
Be careful that your false accusations don't bounce back on you.
Last edited:
Liberal
Libruhl! Libruhl!
I hope the people have woken up to Obama and his Socialist "visions" for our country
He already started with OUR HEALTH CARE
Open your eyes
Vote him out people
Yeah, I can't believe that socialist health care reform bill that mandates people to buy private insurance.
Derp, derp, derp......
Goes to my point that the USA has no idea what socialism is, beyond the Neocon buzzword/overuse.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #40
Making the right predictions are an issue with me at times, mud, not telling the narative fairly.
tsk tsk tsk . . . not true, guys, and you know it.
You are part of the John Oliver Syndrome, which insists you can alter the actual narrative of the past by simply changing the narrative (without facts), and when called on it, you yell, "But I can change that" by lying.
tsk tsk tsk
You would know!
Be careful that you false accusations don't bounce back on you.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 62
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 282
- Replies
- 210
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 193
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 125
- Replies
- 312
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-