Liberal Supermajority

That's the misinformation bs (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html) out there about ACORN.You just have to have a legit NGO and apply for the funds. Let's leave the conspiracy theories for 70 shall we.Let's wait and see how the $ 4B is dispersed and then we'll talk, I'll go on record with my "C-O-N-spiracy" theory that ACORN (or affiliated organizations) will receive a significant chunk of that $ 4B.

Here i was thinking that before GM's decline they manufactured 9.35 million car in 2007 vs 9.5 million cars that Toyota built (http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/28-01-08_15). With relatively the same number of employees too.

Believe it or not but you don't know what you're talking about and I am more than happy to inform you.
Before busting 8588s chops you probably should've done a little more homework. He is much closer to being correct on this point than you. While the worldwide sales and employee numbers are the same you forgot the most important number....I know this is hard for a lefty to comprehend....profits. GM = - $2B, Toyota = + $ 13B.

You should also read this article from AutoObserver/Edmunds, a non-politcal source:

So, Toyota’s No. 1. What Now GM? - Auto Observer (http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/04/so-toyotas-no-1-what-now-gm.html)

The article mentions exactly what 8588 is talking about. From the article:
North America: GM’s Challenge
Still, North America is GM’s home base, and the carmaker has its work cut out for it here.
It’s still got too many employees -– both salaried and hourly –- in its ranks. Clearly, GM needs a favorable contract with the UAW this fall and could use some help on health care issues, as the entire country could.
But it’s also got bloated ranks of salaried employees, many of the complacent and adding no value; in fact, they may well be hindering value. Only yesterday, hours after the “Toyota surpasses GM” announcement, I sat at a high school sporting event with a GM employee. He was telling me about co-workers just putting in their time until they were offered a buyout or were due for retirement. One, that very afternoon, was seeking out a quiet spot for an afternoon siesta, he told me. GM, get rid of them!

I don't have any experience in the auto industry, but I have extensive experience in the telecom/networking industry and I can tell you with 100% certainty, whenever I was pricing a project that involved union workers I knew my cost would be significantly higher, the rules/regs would be much more difficult to navigate, and the customer would ultimately be at the mercy of the "union rules". I always avoided using union labor after a couple of bad experiences.

Were the unions a good thing back in the first half of the 1900s, absolutely. Today the free market is the best way to determine wages and pricing. That's why a vast majority of US workers are non-union, and companies cannot be competitive with union workers. You and the left may not like it, but that's reality.

i would take offense to what you are saying 8588, but you really don't know what you are talking about. my dad was a teamster for all but 40 years, and worked for what he has. you seem to forget that there are 2 sides at the table. if these wages are so inconceivable, then why did management agree to them? unions are a big reason that alot of Americans can enjoy a decent wage. the only reason they are starting to fade away is Ronald Reagan, and what he did to the air traffic controllers. with corporate greed running wild, do you trust the board that runs your company, to do whats best for you? i know i don'tI'm sure your Dad worked very hard and earned what he got.

But....is Hoffa's body really in the end-zone at Giants stadium?

I'm sure your Dad worked very hard and earned what he got.

But....is Hoffa's body really in the end-zone at Giants stadium?

Don't you watch Mythbuster's?? Of course he isn't. I have always thought they put him under the grassy knoll.

1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.
That's just FUD. We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.

My buddy is a good example of what the union does in the way of getting in the way. He was installing things into the dash of F150 trucks which kept him pretty busy. After some type of review done by the union his mgr informed him that he would now have two other guys doing this task. When he asked why the mgr said it had something to do with union regulations. So now he had 2 other guys doing a job that he was doing on his own. These were guys they had to higher and would guess that had to be a cost close to $200,000 a year on Ford. MY buddy tried to talk them into just paying him more if they thought he was over worked. Mgr said that would be great if the union would allow that.
this works both ways. in January, my work laid off about 100 people. guess who absorbed their jobs? the remaining employees. guess who doesn't get any more money? the remaining employees. sure, im glad to have a job. but since that lay off, we have added a handful of salary jobs. do you really think this happens if there is a union? and the people that point to the hourly workers at G.M as the root of the problem make me laugh. what about those C.E.O's making all the decisions, and millions to boot? think they might have had something to do with it?

We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.My statement is FUD??? Did you just watch Sicko or are you just following the socialized medicine talking points?

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12667987)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.

That's just FUD. We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.

Based SOLELY on health care, what are the 37 countries you would prefer to live in other than the US if:
You currently carry standard indemnity based insurance?
You have employer provided HMO insurance?
You are a healthy uninsured single?

Based on what? Quality of care? Coverage? Cost?

Also, based SOLELY on health care, what are the 37 countries you would prefer to live in other than the US if:
You currently carry standard indemnity based insurance?
You have employer provided HMO insurance?
You are a healthy uninsured single?


I get the impression you think people pile on the US system. One can also make the same argument with respect to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.

Put me down for Japan.

I get the impression you think people pile on the US system. One can also make the same argument with respect to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.

I think that there is a misperception that the US has a horrible health care system. I believe it is not horrible, that it has its issues (mainly as to cost and the associated negative consequences) and that, as an individual with good, affordable healthcare, I would not choose to live anywhere but the US based on healthcare. The US provides state of the art treatment and high standards as to quality control. I also believe that the vast majority of Americans would agree with my position.

I do not understand the point of the bolded sentence. Is it that all health care in the developed world has its issues? that "people" can legitimately attack the healthcare in any developed country?

Put me down for Japan
That's one. Got 36 more?