Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Saving the auto industry, developing a national health care plan are unaffordable luxuries

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2012 8:43 p.m.

    Nice to brag, but we all know that is all it is. Because how is the Administration (btw they used our money to do it) saving GM and Chrysler through manipulation of bankruptcy laws and massive government funding saving the American auto industry? Strange thinking given the second largest US headquartered manufacturer of autos received no such monies nor the benefit of bankruptcy manipulation. Further, foreign based producers Honda, Toyota, Isuzu, BMW, provide more American auto manufacturing jobs than GM or Chrysler and they, also received no TARP funds, nor bankruptcy manipulation. And, how is making Chrysler foreign owned (it is now owned by FIAT) considered saving an American manufacturer, when these others are not given that status? But, it is the season for political rhetoric and the partisans need something to say even if it just is not logical or true.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2012 8:16 p.m.

    Tax cuts for the wealthy are the most luxurious. They all need a third and fourth residence. The patriotic thing do was to cancel the cuts the moment the unfunded Iraq war started. The next such war should be paid for by cash from each citizen.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Sept. 8, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    The auto industry repaid the money, we, as taxpayers, didn't lose anything. We also didn't lose one million jobs, and behind each of those jobs is a family, not just numbers.

  • Bart Tippetts Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 8, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    Saving the auto industries and have universal health plan are affordable necessities especially when our country has $188 trillion in total assets. It something we can afford and have the means to do so.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 7, 2012 11:05 p.m.

    Health care isn't a luxury. Everyone will need it sooner or later. In addition, we can afford it. Because in this country, there's more money than almost anywhere else in the world per capita going towards health care. What we need to do is stop giving huge chunks of it to hospital and insurance company profit margins. Health care and its' institutions are a service to the citizens of the nation. Make the system a manifestation of the best in each of us, owned by all of us. No one should profit from the sickness of another. Health care can be delivered to and by the people. Health insurance should be seen as the oxymoron it is.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 7, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    @mike richards

    Keep piling on the false witness Mike. Obama did not steal from the stock holders GM came to the government and requested a loan which the government extended them and they paid back. No take over no government control.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 7, 2012 1:01 a.m.

    Past tax cuts for he super wealthy were also unaffordable luxuries.

    Ensuring the burden of fixing our nations financial
    mismanagement doesn't fall exclusively on the poor and
    middle class is necessary. However only democrats and
    'evil' socialists can be counted on to ensure this doesn't
    happen.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2012 10:20 p.m.

    phranc,

    Okay, have it your way. Obama STOLE G.M. and Chrysler from the stockholders without paying them. That is against Amendment 5 of the Constitution: ". . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What "just compensation" did the Government give to the stockholders? There had to be something of value, because the government gave a huge portion of G.M. and Chrysler to the Unions. What tax credits did the Stock Holders receive against FUTURE PROFITS that they may earn? The unions received BILLIONS in tax credits - all illegally.

    ----

    Socialism: "Socialism is an economic system where the means of production, such as money and other forms of capital, are owned by the state or public."

    G.M. and Chrysler are both owned by the State. They are the means of production. They represent capital expended by the people that was seized by the government.

    YOU may object to my use of Socialism, but the dictionary agrees.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 9:56 p.m.

    If Gm bankrupted, it would have been a depression. Hoping for economic problems to obtain political power is unpatrotic.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    @mike and J
    so when did baring false witness become a Christian value? Obama did not socialist GM or the banks or allow the government to take them over. You both repeat lies so often now that I think you actually believe they are true, which seems like a very strange value system to me.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    saving thousands of jobs is now a luxury?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 6, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    Correction of my previous post. The legislation was signed in 1980 just before Reagan took office.

    There are many instances of bailouts in the history of the US.

    They have been done by R and D. Dont make it sound like Obama invented the concept.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    After the previous automobile company "bailouts", who owned those companies, the original stockholders or the government?

    That is the issue here. Obama seized two car companies from private ownership and gave them to the government. Doing that is illegal. What's next? Will the government take ownership of the company that employs you (assuming that you don't already work for the government)?

    If you OWNED a company and the government took your equity in YOUR company and gave it to unions and to Canada, how would you feel? Obama did that. Do you fully understand it? Obama did that.

    He truly is a luxury that we can't afford.

  • MSM SLC, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    By 2019, nearly 50% of the national deficit will be from two Bush policies.
    (Source: http://bit.ly/NKPeFc)

    If you really care about the national deficit, you should vote for Obama.
    - Under Obama annualized federal spending growth is the slowest in multiple decades (1.4% for Obama, vs. 8.1% and 7.3% for Bush), 8.7% for Reagan) (Source: http://bit.ly/MnmUcR)
    - Bush's policy decisions led to $5.07 trillion dollars in deficit; while Obama's policy decisions projected for the same time period will contribute $1.44 trillion. (Source: http://nyti.ms/qF1lNe)
    - The unfunded Bush wars and tax cuts alone will account for nearly 50% of the overall national deficit by 2019 (Source: http://bit.ly/NKPeFc)

    How is Romney's plan different from Bush's? Answer is it is not. In fact, it is not really any different than what Republicans have said for multiple decades. (Source: http://bit.ly/SZsHLn)

    If you really care about national deficits, please help me understand how a vote for Romney / Ryan makes sense?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 6, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    "The federal government is restrained from saving car companies and banks. It is restrained by the little known and little respected document called the CONSTITUTION! "

    I think he just took his queue from Ronald Reagan who bailed out Chrysler.

    Or maybe he got the idea from Bush who started the bank and auto bailout.

    I guess it is only unconstitutional when a democrat does it

    Reminds me of a recent saying.

    "It takes some brass to attack a guy who did what you did."

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Grover,

    Read the tax laws that PROHIBIT a tax credit on FUTURE EARNINGS after a bankruptcy. Read what Obama did to set aside that law. It's public knowledge. You can easily find it on the Internet.

    As for impeachment, the House could easy impeach Obama, but the Senate would do just as it did with Clinton. The corruption goes deep.

    The House and the Senate get their funds, in large part, by passing laws that are extra-constitutional. In other words, if they limited themselves to the enumerated duties, the Federal Government would not have Obamacare, or Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or any other "social program". Those "duties" are not enumerated in the Constitution; therefore, those "duties" are to be left to the States or to the People. There is no provision for "personal welfare" in the Constitution.

    That is a very simple concept; yet you and others, who support Obama and big government, either can't grasp it or refuse to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land. Without law we are nothing. It's easy to see that Obama is turning this nation into "nothing".

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 6, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    Oh I don't know. Keeping jobs from exiting the US seems like letting the fisherman fish after you taught him to fish and healing the sick? Is that really a luxury?

    When we spend a trillion dollars a year on warplanes, missles and satelites to aid in killing people can we really say we are broke?

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    No complaints at all about Medicare Part D or 2 unfunded idiotic wars. It's just useless to even try to talk to these people...

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    Mike R: Since you are the Utah arbiter of what the Constitution allows and doesn't, surely you must be aware that "graft" would meet the Constitutional definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Hence the overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives could deliver a bill of impeachment against the President. Since it would appear that the GOP has no intention of doing any such thing currently, I would suggest you come forward with your proof of graft by the duly elected chief executive of the nation or cease and desist with your slander.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    The federal government is restrained from saving car companies and banks. It is restrained by the little known and little respected document called the CONSTITUTION!

    The Constitution didn't stop Obama from "socializing" G.M. He ignored the Constitution and gave G.M. to the Unions. He ignored the laws of the land when he gave G.M. a tax credit against FUTURE earnings. He lied to us when he said that G.M. had paid back the TARP funds used to "buy" it. G.M. used about $7 billion of other TARP funds to repay a small part of another TARP loan. Everything about G.M. stinks. Obama simply paid off unions for their help in electing him. If that is not political corruption, then what is?

    We cannot afford Obama. We cannot afford his graft. We cannot afford his ideas. We cannot afford his principles. He has ignored the Constitution, even though he calls himself a "Constitutional Expert". He refuses to duty his duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress, instead he tells the justice department to ignore those laws that he does not like.

    Obama is a "luxury" that we cannot afford.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    How about tax cuts for millionaires? Apparently, as with Bush, Romney and Ryan seem to believe that the single biggest problem in our country, the single most important national priority, the number one thing we need to address before we address any other issue, is that our rich people aren't rich enough. All our other problems will vanish, if only the wealthiest people were just that much wealthier.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    I would argue the exact opposite. We could not afford to not do those things.

    If we failed to help the auto industry, unemployment would have sky rocketed. Not just in auto producing, but in all the industries that rely on it. This in turn would have resulted in even more people on the government dole, and really no place to find jobs. You take the auto industry from detroit, where do they find jobs? Saving the auto industry kept those jobs, introduced measures to make these companies more viable and profitable. It was an investment that paid off.

    If we fail to anything about health care, more people will continue to go bankrupt. Who pays that cost? The taxpayer. We pay the cost of people being unable to afford healthcare, when someone loses a home, we the taxpayer pay for that.

    These are investments we had to make.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 6, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    So sir, I suggest you give the 1.1 million auto workers who still have jobs and can go to work everyday and earn a living for their families a call to see if they think their jobs are luxuries we can't afford. Monies borrowed were at 0% interest and have help create 4.5 milion private sector jobs..now that's a trickle theory you can believe in.

    Regarding your impending doom..asked if he would take a 10 to 1 cuts to revenue increase debt reduction deal, Romney said no. What President ever has not used both cuts and revenue increases to manage the debt? It's hardly a radical idea..except in Romneys head.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    I'm sorry, but this letter borders on bizarre. Maybe defense, education, roads, parks, law enforcement, and so forth are also luxuries. This letter shows an attitude of "I have mine and you are on your own." As long as you get what you want without having to pay an appropriate amount of taxes, then you are happy. My biggest problem with the Republicans is the narcissism that is at their core. Reading letters like this drive me further away from what the GOP stands for, because it will surely take the nation into destruction.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 6, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    But $4,000,000,000,000 (that is 4 Trillion) on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was necessary?

    At least when you buy an unnecessary luxury item, you have something to show for it.

    The R and the D love to spend money that we don't have. And they are happy to pass on the costs to future generations to pay back.

    And those staunch party people only complain about the spending on the other side.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2012 5:19 a.m.

    Too bad you weren't protesting "irresponsible spending" during the Bush reign. Do you know how much those "wars" cost? Do you know that Bush borrowed hundreds of billions from China to finance the wars? Do you know how much money has been wasted on fraudulent payments to Halliburton/KBR? I'm sure most Utahns, who voted for Bush twice, didn't think much at all about those little details.

    Please try to be respectful of the will of the American people and especially be respectful of this wonderful, amazing leader and President we are so fortunate to have in Barack Obama!

    And don't be a poor sport, I've witnessed enough of that from Utah's "extra patriotic" sore losers the last four years to make me really embarrassed to admit I come from Utah.