Honda Car Forum

In article
<84945a18-d579-4e07-8086-e3d8f1b6b84c@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
in2dadark <in2dadark@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > ????? *For a thousand dollar mistake? *If you can't afford that, you
> > can't afford the house.
>
>
> I agree with most of what you said. But if you're paying for
> insurance, you should be able to use it when something happens.

Oh, you can use it.

Just like if you PAID for that screwdriver, you should be able to USE it
to roof your house.

And you can. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:bprdl4197s9hqsh771drkc218019rfrt9g@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:48:15 -0600, "labatyd" <fake@fake.net> wrote:
>
>>> First, unregulated capitalism is not capitalism, because it
>>
>>Wrong. Regulated capitalism is fascism or it's cousin socialism.
>
> Fascism and Socialism are distant cousins at best. Fascism is the
> merger of government and business "for the benefit of both" according
> to the dictionary definition, but "for the benefit of those in charge
> in the government and the biggest capitalists" on a practical basis.

Yes. IOW, the common person doesn't count.

Socialism, gee the common person doesn't count either. He belongs to the
state.

>
> Fascism is what we have had under GWB/Cheney, where any government
> spending is good spending, and government regulation is good
> regulation, as long as it benefits them and their neo-con friends. The
> bailouts are just icing on the cake of their long running fascist
> state.
>
> While their fascist enterprise has lacked the traditional dictatorial
> ruler, the dramatic expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch,
> combined with a penchant for ignoring the Constitution whenever
> convenient, along with the most ineffective Democratic Congress in
> many years has given them the closet thing you will likely ever see to
> dictatorship in this country (I hope).

I hope too. Don't count on it. All you need is one more "emergency". After
all FDR was able to extend the normal two terms. And as you emntion the
contsitution has largely been ignored or modiifed and will be again.

>
>

On 28 Dec, 03:23, me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:48:15 -0600, "labatyd" <f...@fake.net> wrote:
> >> First, unregulated capitalism is not capitalism, because it
>
> >Wrong. Regulated capitalism is fascism or it's cousin socialism.
>
> Fascism and Socialism are distant cousins at best. Fascism is the
> merger of government and business "for the benefit of both" according
> to the dictionary definition, but "for the benefit of those in charge
> in the government and the biggest capitalists" on a practical basis.
>
> Fascism is what we have had under GWB/Cheney, where any government
> spending is good spending, and government regulation is good
> regulation, as long as it benefits them and their neo-con friends. The
> bailouts are just icing on the cake of their long running fascist
> state.
>
> While their fascist enterprise has lacked the traditional dictatorial
> ruler, the dramatic expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch,
> combined with a penchant for ignoring the Constitution whenever
> convenient, along with the most ineffective Democratic Congress in
> many years has given them the closet thing you will likely ever see to
> dictatorship in this country (I hope).

Pure fascism like pure socialism as well as pure capitalism has never
excisted for very long because the very soon result in dictatorship.
Kings, presidents, whatever name they use all eventually stop being
anything good for the general population and the one at top uses all
and every means of making sure his powers remain absolute.
In the US the two political parties make sure they divide everything
between themselfes.
It does not matter what anyone thinks they are just two sides of the
same coin.
They then dress a few monkeys up for the front in two similar colours.
You do not have any sayings about things as individuals.

"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4caa62a-bce8-49a8-891c-619a7ae23a83@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Dec, 03:23, me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:48:15 -0600, "labatyd" <f...@fake.net> wrote:
>> >> First, unregulated capitalism is not capitalism, because it
>>
>> >Wrong. Regulated capitalism is fascism or it's cousin socialism.
>>
>> Fascism and Socialism are distant cousins at best. Fascism is the
>> merger of government and business "for the benefit of both" according
>> to the dictionary definition, but "for the benefit of those in charge
>> in the government and the biggest capitalists" on a practical basis.
>>
>> Fascism is what we have had under GWB/Cheney, where any government
>> spending is good spending, and government regulation is good
>> regulation, as long as it benefits them and their neo-con friends. The
>> bailouts are just icing on the cake of their long running fascist
>> state.
>>
>> While their fascist enterprise has lacked the traditional dictatorial
>> ruler, the dramatic expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch,
>> combined with a penchant for ignoring the Constitution whenever
>> convenient, along with the most ineffective Democratic Congress in
>> many years has given them the closet thing you will likely ever see to
>> dictatorship in this country (I hope).
>
> Pure fascism like pure socialism as well as pure capitalism has never
> excisted for very long because the very soon result in dictatorship.

While I agree there never has been full blown capitalism I disagree that it
can not last indefinitely. In fact the only time it has existed in it's
closest form is in the USA. Actually not quite true. Switzerland has had
something close for a longer period. Over two centuries now for the USA but
you can hardly compare today's version with how it began. That's a fairly
long period considering human history. Today it would probably be better
described as fascism. Definitely moving in that direction. It could be
halted should the citizens wake up but it is my current belief that won't
happen. A hundred years from now, probably less it won't be the best place
in the world to live. It's rapidly losing it's appeal. Most people living
there today (and in Canada) don't appreciate what capitalism has done for
them. They perceive an unwarranted ugly side of capitalism and wish to get
rid of it. Careful what you wish for. You just might get it.


> Kings, presidents, whatever name they use all eventually stop being
> anything good for the general population and the one at top uses all
> and every means of making sure his powers remain absolute.
> In the US the two political parties make sure they divide everything
> between themselfes.
> It does not matter what anyone thinks they are just two sides of the
> same coin.
> They then dress a few monkeys up for the front in two similar colours.
> You do not have any sayings about things as individuals.
>

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:19:35 -0600, "labatyd" <fake@fake.net> wrote:

>While I agree there never has been full blown capitalism

Well, during the robber baron period it was awfully close. The last 8
years, with little enforcement of anti-trust laws and the gutting of
many regulations or the agencies that administer them, is also very
close.

> I disagree that it
>can not last indefinitely. In fact the only time it has existed in it's
>closest form is in the USA. Actually not quite true. Switzerland has had
>something close for a longer period. Over two centuries now for the USA but
>you can hardly compare today's version with how it began. That's a fairly
>long period considering human history. Today it would probably be better
>described as fascism. Definitely moving in that direction.

Post Bush/Cheney/Neo-cons, you are correct. An ugly direction that
threatens the very foundations of our country.

>It could be
>halted should the citizens wake up but it is my current belief that won't
>happen.

Probably correct. The general populace is not all that sharp and
easily brainwashed/fooled. They live on sound bites and talk show
rhetoric. Look at what the neo-cons were able to do over the last 8
years.

>A hundred years from now, probably less it won't be the best place
>in the world to live. It's rapidly losing it's appeal. Most people living
>there today (and in Canada) don't appreciate what capitalism has done for
>them. They perceive an unwarranted ugly side of capitalism and wish to get
>rid of it. Careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

You may be right. The neo-con conspiracy continues to take them for
all they are worth while the people smile and nod. A few woke up in
the last election but only after a catastrophic occurrence. I'm not so
sure they won't fall asleep again.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:08:45 -0500, me wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:34:02 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
>
>>He said how his uncle would come over to the house and say, "We're going
>>to bring this company to it's KNEES!!!"
>>
>>They did. Transformers was sold to Westinghouse (pretty interesting, since
>>GE was started by Edison and Edison and Westinghouse were rivals...) and
>>moved to Ohio. All those IBEW workers found themselves leaning on brooms
>>in malls...
>
> But they didn't give in - and that's what really counts!

YES! They stuck to their guns! Their jobs at $14 an hour went away, and
when they were gone there were 2,500 more people in the workforce than the
area could handle. 30 applicants for every job.

So, If I need to hire someone, and figure I'll have to pay $12 an hour to
get who I need, I can now offer $8 an hour because SOMEONE will take it!

"Jeff" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d0f455f-601e-4d7f-8926-445f87d84535@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 24, 1:25 pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote
>
> > Morons. The companies are about to go down the tubes but
> > the union leaders
> > refuse to give anything back. As a matter of fact, they're
> > asking for more.
>
> > The auto industry in this country should be allowed to go
> > down the tubes.
> > Then they can restart with workers who realize having a
> > job at an OK pay
> > rate is better than having NO job at Union scale...
>
> > How stupid can you be?
>
> Stupid enough not to consider that bankruptcy may actually
> payoff better for the unions via government guarantees on
> pensions and unemployment insurance?

Actually, there are strict limits on what the government will
guarantee for pensions. And I doubt that auto workers will get any
more unemployment than an office worker or other worker.

Jeff
---------
Sure beats nothing.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:11:50 -0700, Canuck57 cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

> "Jeff" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5d0f455f-601e-4d7f-8926-445f87d84535@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 24, 1:25 pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote
>>
>>> Morons. The companies are about to go down the tubes but
>>> the union leaders
>>> refuse to give anything back. As a matter of fact, they're
>>> asking for more.
>>
>>> The auto industry in this country should be allowed to go
>>> down the tubes.
>>> Then they can restart with workers who realize having a
>>> job at an OK pay
>>> rate is better than having NO job at Union scale...
>>
>>> How stupid can you be?
>>
>> Stupid enough not to consider that bankruptcy may actually
>> payoff better for the unions via government guarantees on
>> pensions and unemployment insurance?
>
> Actually, there are strict limits on what the government will
> guarantee for pensions. And I doubt that auto workers will get any
> more unemployment than an office worker or other worker.
>

You have not watched what has happened to benefit UAW workers in other
states over the past 10 year have you? Extended unemployment benefts are
only the beginning of the preferential treatment they've received.



--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:za0vdu00zpgp.w4sh24qnws4w.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:11:50 -0700, Canuck57 cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>> "Jeff" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5d0f455f-601e-4d7f-8926-445f87d84535@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 24, 1:25 pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote
>>>
>>>> Morons. The companies are about to go down the tubes but
>>>> the union leaders
>>>> refuse to give anything back. As a matter of fact, they're
>>>> asking for more.
>>>
>>>> The auto industry in this country should be allowed to go
>>>> down the tubes.
>>>> Then they can restart with workers who realize having a
>>>> job at an OK pay
>>>> rate is better than having NO job at Union scale...
>>>
>>>> How stupid can you be?
>>>
>>> Stupid enough not to consider that bankruptcy may actually
>>> payoff better for the unions via government guarantees on
>>> pensions and unemployment insurance?
>>
>> Actually, there are strict limits on what the government will
>> guarantee for pensions. And I doubt that auto workers will get any
>> more unemployment than an office worker or other worker.
>>
>
> You have not watched what has happened to benefit UAW workers in other
> states over the past 10 year have you? Extended unemployment benefts are
> only the beginning of the preferential treatment they've received.

I know, they are sacred cows that need the slaughterhouse (firings).

Elle wrote:
> "Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote
>> Thus spake "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> :
>>> Are you saying the unions are not negotiating on the basis
>>> of what they get if GM yada go bankrupt? I have far more
>>> confidence that the OP is the negligent one here.
>>>
>> If the Detroit 3 fold up and the Pension Guarantee Fund
>> has to cover
>> it, they'll get between 75 and 85% of their pensions over
>> a certain
>> limit. And no medical coverage.
>
> Once the PBGC guarantee kicks in, a tax credit for health
> insurance premiums kicks in also, costing the taxpayer big
> time.
>
>> If they go chapter 11, the bankruptcy judge can rewrite
>> the contracts
>> unilaterally.
>
> Not the ones involving the federal government's guarantee of
> pensions.
>
>> So how are the unions winning? By being "big" and giving
>> back now,
>> the judge would probably be less likely to bang on them if
>> chapter 11
>> hits. If it's chapter 7, they really haven't lost much.
>
> It has been well reported that the unions are compromising a
> lot. Hachi needs to cite the article where he claims the
> unions refuse to give anything. There is no question that
> union leadership is running the numbers and playing the
> odds. My point is they are not stupid.
>
> It is a dumb public that got us to this point. I say let the
> Big 3 go under, and taxpayers, suck it up while we
> transition to better auto makers (Toyota, Honda et al.).
> Let's promote some smarts on this topic instead of Hachi's
> nonsense.

Good post, thanks, Elle.