Re: [AMC-list] cash for clunkers

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
" 
" The government doesn't manage war well -- Vietnam and the current
" mess in Iraq come to mind.  Military trained and experienced men
" *usually* do -- the first Gulf War, for example.  Bush Sr.  told
" the military what he wanted, then stayed out of the way.  His son
" was an idiot in several ways, but all presidents have their good
" and bad sides...

politicians...  excellently qualified for the beauty contest which is
the democratic election process and damn-all else, but not shy of
meddling whenever and whereever they see advantage, primarily for
themselves.

" In
" theory I agree with a government sponsored basic health care, but
" really think it should be something taxed at a low level, and
" only for those who don't have their own insurance.  In other
" words, government sponsored (and probably subsidized), but also
" with the benefactor making at least a token payment.  I mean heck,
" you're paying for those without insurance now, in one way or
" another, so why not?  Mandatory payroll premiums, based on a
" percentage of pay to make it somewhat fair, with the government
" making up the rest.  Like I said, taxes pay for those without
" insurance anyway, that would at least pay for a portion of it.

that's the ma plan.  like taxes it's free at the bottom, but the more
you make the more you pay.  and you can opt out if you show qualifying
insurance - i do.  if you don't have insurance, you get a big penalty
on your taxes regardless of income.  this is to encourage all those
who don't have insurance to stop using emergency rooms as their basic
care and get some.  we've had a serious problem with er closures b/c
hospitals can't afford to run them and they can't selectively turn
folks - like those who don't pay - away.

the theory is that if you have insurance you'll get preemptive instead
of emergency care, and that should be much cheaper in the long run.
iirc there's already some evidence of that, though many more signed up
for the state plan than forecast.

" The "cash for clunkers" idea has some merits, but the main
" problem is that money is coming from the government.

secondarily, it's also anti-ecological.  the federal epa did a study
in the '90s that determined that the greenest thing you can do with an
old car is keep it on the road.  there's a tremendous hidden cost, in
both energy and pollution, in manufacture and disposal of a car.
before that, the ca epa did a state study and concluded that all old
cars and trucks - in a state where cars last a looong time - emitted
less pollution than only the newer cars that failed state inspection.

this is a very nasty, dirty, expensive way to subsidize jobs.  and as
someone else posted, it's the camel's nose in the tent.

we could cut the program's real costs down if we passed a law like
germany's green party's - which i understand is now eu-wide:
manufacturers are responsible for proper disposal - eg. recycling - of
their products [and all packaging] at the end of their useful lives.
it's resulted in cars being re-engineered so that every scrap of
plastic is marked with the recycling triangle.  the economics of
'planned obsolescence' are radically altered.

what do you think the chances of that are?  how hard do you think
industry would lobby for loopholes?

" Obama has
" spent way too much money on way to many things, some totally
" stupid, some couldn't be helped.  GM and Chrysler should have been
" under bankruptcy protection before the government stepped in to
" keep them from folding.  Negate those "golden parachute" contracts
" and axe half the execs!  But no, they fired the head guy before
" bankruptcy so he got his 20 mill (or whatever) parachute filled
" -- you and I (everyone on the list!) paid it.

it's possible they forced him out sans parachute, and it sure would be
nice to hear - though imho he was as much designated fall guy as perp
of gm's woes - but i wouldn't lay odds.

" Manufacturing jobs
" are still moving out of the country, part of that is our own
" fault for continually demanding more while doing less.  It's a
" vicious cycle -- factories give in to employee union demands,
" then try to do more with less, which puts more pressure on
" employees, who demand more, etc.  It goes on.  We've got into that
" cycle and can't get off easily!

part of it is the vicious adversarial union-mgmt relationship, and
there's so much bad history there's no easy solution.  i suspect this
is why gm hasn't been able to duplicate toyota's success even when
toyota stepped in and showed them how in their own factories.

gm has been 'burning the furniture to heat the house' for so long, the
'leaner, more competitive' gm of the future will be only the palest,
thinnest shadow of what it once was just a few decades ago.  it may
well be more competitive.  it will be less important.  much that was
competitive - emc, delphi, muncie, detroit diesel - has already been
cut loose.

probably all the divisions gm is now shedding will lose their jobs and
go offshore.  the new owners of saturn promised to keep the factories
open for the next 2 years.  the chinese bidders for hummer [which
deal is now off, i  understand] promised the same thing.

then what?
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com