On Feb 28, 10:18*am, terry wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:49*am, Dean Hoffman wrote:

* * Have you driven a Ford lately?
* *GM and Chrysler don't count anymore to me. *The Feds have those two
companies in their grimy mitts.- Hide quoted text -
* * Have you driven a Ford lately?
* *GM and Chrysler don't count anymore to me. *The Feds have those two
companies in their grimy mitts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Read that as ...... 'US automakers, reluctantly funded by the US
federal government'!

During previous decades the mantra *was that 'private enterprise' and
the market place were 'self regulating'.
Huh; that didn't work and the desk chair wasn't even cool from the
previous president's posterior before the automakers were in
Washington looking for 'bail-outs'! The last 10 to 15 years have not
been good in the Good Ole USA, eh?

Governments don't 'want' to be in private business ...... it's not
something they do well.

LOL. Yeah, that's why Obama and the Dems are so hell bent on taking
control of healthcare, prefering a public option and rejecting
outright any number of simple steps that could be taken a few at a
time to bring needed reform. Let's take for example eliminating
roadblocks so that any health insurance company can sell it's products
anywhere in the USA across state lines. If you're is in favor of
competition and private business, then this is a simple and very
logical step. Yet, Obama laments the lack of competition and at the
same time refuses this simple proposal outright. Of course if the
competition came from govt, then it would be OK. Even worse, despite
being asked many times why he's opposed, he has yet to give an
answer. Last Thursday, at the meeting to explore reaching some kind
of agreement, the Obama answer was he didn't want to get bogged down
in "talking points"


Maybe those automakers should have been
allowed to go under; at least no bonus for the ham handed executives
who took them to the edge.

And maybe all those workers in the auto industry who would have (and
might still?) lose their livelihood should be laid off and find other
jobs? But then the question would be 'what is the government doing
about it?'.

If one needs needs to buy a vehicle there are plenty of manufacturers
around the world, Japanese, Korean, European, even India and it won't
be long before China will be (or already is?) a big player. We have
found that the most suitable are Japanese, especially those
manufactured entirely in Japan! The last North America produced
Japanese vehicle we bought had problems with weather related items
such as wipers (it snows and vehicles ice up in North America by the
way!), also lousy North American made electrics that corroded quickly.

I guess those Toyota cars, most of which are built in Japan, that are
killing people and causing runaway accidents are crowning examples of
Japanese achievement. And if everything built in NA were crap, then
there would be a hell of a lot of BMWs, Hondas, MBs etc that would be
having all kinds of problems.




Since around 1967 Japanese vehicles, for example, in these parts have
gone from being described as a 'Toy' (remember those adverts?) to
somewhere around 50% of the vehicles on the road! In some Arab
countries, you know the ones that sell us our oil, and where they have
plenty of money to buy whatever they want (and several of them) the
percentage of North American style/manufactured vehicles is extremely
low.

Who cares what anyone drives in some Arab countries? But for the
record, HumVees seem to be very popular over there. Where are they
built?




Aside from vehicles; what is also noticeable as the world economy
starts to recover is that those countries that have better regulated
(that's regulated not governemnt run) financial systems are recovering
a lot more quickly.

Yeah, China is having a boom at the moment. Does that make communism
the best system? Last time I checked the US economy was and
continues to be heavily regulated. Does that mean that the system
will forsee and prevent everything that can go wrong? Of course
not. Hindsight is 20-20. And if the govt is so much better, why did
FNMA and FreddieMac, which are quasi govt agencies go bust too?
Wasn't it Congressman Barney Frank, who's committee has supervisory
authority, proclaim all was well just about a year before everything
hit the fan?




All this ranting about 'socialism', 'fascism',
'government involvement' etc. that the Americans who don't understand
any of it, indulge in is emotional.

I think many of us here understand it a lot better than you.





It all harks back to the Senator McCarthy era where his 'Un American
Activities' committee could find a 'Commie' under every park bench or
in every movie script. Seems to be repeating the unfortunate trait of
blaming somebody else for what are obviously problems internal to the
country.

Maybe the USA needs a better system of government?

You have a govt that now owns GM and is seeking to take over 16% of
the rest of the economy. At the same time they reject private free
market easy solutions out of hand. Obama regularly rails against all
kinds of businesses: Wall Street, Las Vegas, Insurance companies,
Drug companies, etc. That indeed is moving toward socialism.





One that is 'By the
people, for the people etc. .....'? It's seems obvious that the '
lobbying system' of government has disadvantages? One lobbyist gets
ahead (or what they want) and Joe/Jane citizen are left out.

And where and under what system of govt exactly is it that this does
not occur?




Whether having an ordinary guy who put himself through college instead
of Texan oil sponsored millionaires as president will change anything
will have to be seen. Maybe too many vested interest to let him get
anything done?



It's definitely changed things. And just looking at the poll numbers
the people clearly don't like that change. When a Republican wins a
Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy and becomes the first Republican
senator from MA in 35 years, the hand writing is on the wall. And
those that are too arrogant to read it, eg Obama and the Dems, will
pay the price.