[tomder55]

yo

u don't answer my questions either. For instance, what will you do about paying for a nursing home once you've gone through all your savings? In my area, monthly cost is around $7,000 for a semi-private room.

Long term care insurance ? I bought my policy 20 years ago when starting premiums are cheaper . No real good answer . I do not recommend having to go to a state or local Medicaid nursing home . They suck . Patients are not given good care . Unless you plan well ahead of time by moving assets to trusted family members the state will swoop in and pretty much seize everything you own. So set up a variety of Trusts years before you need the care ;at least 5 years before applying for Medicaid so you can shelter your assets before the 'Look back period '.

I'm not taking sides on the morality . I am just looking at the cold hard facts
The Medicaid expansion is an unmitigated disaster It is busting state budgets faster than before Obamacare .It will consume $7 trillion in the next decade ;and that is just a start . As baby boomers enter the program it will be a nation wide budget buster . The hard choice will be taken away from the patient . The system will decide your worth regarding life and death .And when the government decides there aint likely an appeal process you can trust .

[tomder55]

If you're mad now that poor people get your tax money, then your head will really explode when we move to Medicare for all.

and there is the problem . As long as you can pass the expense to the next generation ;Saul Good Man .

[jlisenbe]

Nor do you. :D

Actually, look up about four posts and you'll see you are wrong.

Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.

One more time. You chose to stay at home, which is wonderful, but you said you had no savings. Another wife chooses to work, and the couple are able to save, but they also have to pay extra in taxes to help you in case an emergency arises for which you had not prepared. Is it right for that wife to have to pay for her family AND your family?

[talaniman]

and there is the problem . As long as you can pass the expense to the next generation ;Saul Good Man .

Maybe the next generation will be smarter than us and MORE fiscally responsible. Or maybe they won't need a trillion dollar fleet of military yachts, or won't be dog eat dog capitalists. I know 4 car plant towns that will be on the welfare rolls soon.

[tomder55]

boo hoo.

If GM was allowed to go belly up years ago ,another car maker would've picked up their market share ,and probably more .

Tariffs on steel and aluminum ;NAFTA II favoring mfg in Mexico .Trump can blame himself also . Poor GM management ;poor quality sedans . The whole brand is dysfunctional . GM has been bailed out almost too many times to recalled .If they get bailed out again they will squander it again. If GM can't make it on their own ;let them fail

[talaniman]

Welfare for all and another town bites the dust.

[tomder55]

Shows you the value of $50 billion bailouts . Tax payer dollars pissed away by a leviathin government choosing winners and losers . Thank the emperor's and Bush's TARP.

[paraclete]

You have to wonder, does it matter, new industries arise to fill the void, the US auto makers withdrew from Australia and we hardly notice they are gone but then we aren't prone to rust belts as you are. We no longer foot the bill for an uneconomic industry, even though strategically it was important. What I marvel at is places like Sweden can have efficient industries competing against the world and the supposed centres of innovation can't

[tomder55]

You have to wonder, does it matter, new industries arise to fill the void,

exactly . All you have to do is look at Pittsburg's Renaissance.https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...t-belt-rebound

[jlisenbe]

Sweden can have efficient industries competing against the world and the supposed centres of innovation can't.

State subsidized.

[paraclete]

State subsidized.

Really and the US auto industry isn't state subsidised? Anyway, maybe there is a lesson to be learned about how to do the job

[jlisenbe]

Really and the US auto industry isn't state subsidised? Anyway, maybe there is a lesson to be learned about how to do the job

Yep. There's a lesson to be learned all right. Saab went belly-up in 2011 and is no longer in existence to manufacture cars. Makes some military aircraft for Sweden, but that's about it.

[paraclete]

Yep. There's a lesson to be learned all right. Saab went belly-up in 2011 and is no longer in existence to manufacture cars. Makes some military aircraft for Sweden, but that's about it.

What can I tell you, exotic machinery, but there are many auto manufacturers who have disappeared and some who survive and thrive and the lesson might be that you need to put some precision into what you make.

Looking at the list there are more defunct auto makers in the US than anywhere else, what does this tell us?

[tomder55]

It tells me they relied too much on government subsidies and bailouts . For a long time the idiotic saying was 'What's good for General Motors is good for the USA .

GM did bad forecasting . While American consumers made it clear a long time ago that they prefer SUVs and light trucks ;GM continued to try to compete in the small sedan market (which Japanese auto industry owns in the USA because of their reliability ) . Now GM trucks sell well . And maybe GM sedans do well over seas . But with idiocy like aluminum and steel tariffs and renegotiated NAFTA that favors car production in Mexico,why shouldn't GM move their sedan manufacturing closer to the point of distribution ?

One other thing ;when are we going to get rid of the idiotic electric car subsidy ? They may be the peak of innovation (especially the plug in hybrid ) . But if they can't compete in the market place without government assistance then they don't deserve to be in the market.

[paraclete]

It tells me they relied too much on government subsidies and bailouts . For a long time the idiotic saying was 'What's good for General Motors is good for the USA .

GM did bad forecasting . While American consumers made it clear a long time ago that they prefer SUVs and light trucks ;GM continued to try to compete in the small sedan market (which Japanese auto industry owns in the USA because of their reliability ) . Now GM trucks sell well . And maybe GM sedans do well over seas . But with idiocy like aluminum and steel tariffs and renegotiated NAFTA that favors car production in Mexico,why shouldn't GM move their sedan manufacturing closer to the point of distribution ?

One other thing ;when are we going to get rid of the idiotic electric car subsidy ? They may be the peak of innovation (especially the plug in hybrid ) . But if they can't compete in the market place without government assistance then they don't deserve to be in the market.

Well Tom I suppose you haven't heard of AGW and that the US along with others isn't going to meet its Paris targets (UN data), but then you aren't trying since Trump took it off the table. Electric cars will be the norm so SUV will have to fall in line, I don't like the idea, hard to find a charging point in the wilderness but if you insist in driving gas guzzling monsters until your coast line sinks below the waves who am I to persuade you otherwise. What I know is that one day you won't be able to afford to fill them and you will go back to something more in tune with your pocket

[talaniman]

Shows you the value of $50 billion bailouts . Tax payer dollars pissed away by a leviathin government choosing winners and losers . Thank the emperor's and Bush's TARP.

Yeah let them fail and what would we do with all those jobless workers? Sure we had a whole bunch of unemployed and entire towns gutted, but a controlled process was sure better than everybody walking around saying what happened. Look back at the Global collapse, auto companies were but a part of it, the banks was the major part of the collapse, remember AIG?

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-indu...rysler-3305670

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...09-column.html

But this much is clear: Outgoing President Obama is leaving President-elect Trump a pretty impressive Inauguration Day present: A strong, functional U.S. economy.

What have we learned? Instead of a process of well thought out unwinding and a transition to ease the pain and be stronger, we have a dufus who gives away money to rich fat cats with no incentives to do anything but take the money and run which makes his tax cuts and trade policy fiscally irresponsible. He shares much of the blame with the feckless congress though who let him do it, and say nothing.

A perfect example of profits over people.

[jlisenbe]

But this much is clear: Outgoing President Obama is leaving President-elect Trump a pretty impressive Inauguration Day present: A strong, functional U.S. economy.

Funtional, yes. Strong?? Nope. Obama is the only two term pres who never had a single quarter of 3% or higher GDP growth. And please don't tell us how bad it was when Obama came in. It was worse for Reagan, but the economy took off and grew impressively under his pro-growth policies.

gives away money to rich fat cats with no incentives to do anything but take the money and run

Rich people don't become rich by hiding their money in the backyard. They invest that money, and the investment allows businesses to expand and increase employment as well as earning investment income for the wealthy person. It's one of those great moments when everyone wins.

There is something I don't understand about the GM situation. If I was a GM employee, I would be one of the first to say, "Suppose we all take a 20% pay cut? Would that help keep this plant open and lower the price of GM cars so as to increase sales?" I wouldn't like a 20% pay cut, but it would be much better than a 100% pay cut, and yet that never seems to be done. The last I heard, it costs the Big Three about 75 dollars an hour to employ a worker. I don't see how that can be sustainable, but you never seem to see management and the union come together for the benefit of everyone.

[talaniman]

[QUOTE=jlisenbe;3825943]Funtional, yes. Strong? Nope. Obama is the only two term pres who never had a single quarter of 3% or higher GDP growth. And please don't tell us how bad it was when Obama came in. It was worse for Reagan, but the economy took off and grew impressively under his pro-growth policies.[?QUOTE]

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/31/...3-under-obama/

Although the economy never reached annual growth of 3 percent under Obama, quarterly growth did surpass 3 percent eight times during his presidency. The highest growth recorded was 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014.

Guess we have to wait on the data from the dufus 8 years, if he lasts that long.

Rich people don't become rich by hiding their money in the backyard. They invest that money, and the investment allows businesses to expand and increase employment as well as earning investment income for the wealthy person. It's one of those great moments when everyone wins.

And the workers staying poor on welfare makes them a winner? How much did your city pay for Walmarts? Why do Walmart workers need vouchers and food stamps from your money? At least you could tell the whole story and not just repeat the rich guy talking points.

[jlisenbe]

Correct, and that was my mistake. However, it remains true that he never had a single year of 3% GDP, and is the only two term pres of whom that is true. So it is still difficult the say that was a "strong" economy.

President Donald Trump claimed that annual economic growth never reached 3 percent under former President Barack Obama in a speech on tax reform Wednesday.
Verdict: True
Gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S., never rose 3 percent annually under Obama, although there were eight separate quarters where GDP grew by more than 3 percent.

And the workers staying poor on welfare makes them a winner? How much did your city pay for Walmarts? Why do Walmart workers need vouchers and food stamps from your money? At least you could tell the whole story and not just repeat the rich guy talking points.

Interesting how you automatically go to Walmart. What about other companies that expanded and have driven unemployment down to well under 4%? If it stays that low, wages will go up just due to competition for employees.

Rich guy talking point? How about a little bit of common sense? Why are you so afraid of a "win-win" arrangement? Not to mention that you, I, and others can invest and profit from healthy economy.

[tomder55]

Well Tom I suppose you haven't heard of AGW and that the US along with others isn't going to meet its Paris targets (UN data), but then you aren't trying since Trump took it off the table. Electric cars will be the norm so SUV will have to fall in line, I don't like the idea, hard to find a charging point in the wilderness but if you insist in driving gas guzzling monsters until your coast line sinks below the waves who am I to persuade you otherwise. What I know is that one day you won't be able to afford to fill them and you will go back to something more in tune with your pocket

You really buy into that horse manure ? As for the price of gas ;if and when that becomes an issue

Yeah let them fail and what would we do with all those jobless workers?

Guess they will have to find something else to do.....or to move where the jobs are. That has always been the American way. Did you not see my link to Pittsburg revival ? Same thing happened on Long Island NY when Grumman and Republic stopped being the major employer . WTF work and where you live isn't a guarantee . Libs should stop whining about it waiting for the government to fix their problems .