RagingLiberal.org

The auto insurance industry is unlike any other when it comes to some States and Provinces.

In some areas of industry a monopoly of one business may not be a bad thing. However, when it comes to auto insurance in places like Oxford Mississippi, when some States and Provinces have total monopoly without any competition this can be a dangerous thing that impinges greatly on Liberal politics, theories, and ideals.

Liberal politics advocates for a social philosophy that values individual freedoms and rights to choose. It helps to protect civil liberties and freedom of choice.

A monopoly on the auto insurance industry which is quite real and present in certain areas of North America is actually easily corruptible and does not look into the best interests of the Country or the people.

Because auto insurance is legally mandatory, a monopoly actually goes directly against the right to choose or to have civil liberties. It is important that people are able to choose from a variety of companies or it does not protect the people from rising mandatory pricing costs.

This makes people want to leave the country, State, or Province for better rights as an individual. It is very important that governments recognize this conflict of interest and that it is dealt with in a fair manner.

At least 3-4 different options should be incorporated in the marketplace for auto insurance or for any type of service that is mandatory to use. This borders upon taking away civil liberties and a mandatory dictatorship philosophy.

For other areas if a monopoly is in place such as in a transportation service, the person can simply choose not to use a plane or ferry transportation service and opt to use a train service. When the people have no choices on a mandatory service, this is not a democracy anymore.

It is a dictatorship style business/legal format.

Auto insurance prices can be manipulated based on “who you know” and who the persons in power “like or don’t like”. This type of philosophy is not a liberal government ideal, and it hurts businesses like this auto repair shop in daphne al.

The liberal based government systems need to adjust such situations for the public interest. There should be at least 3-5 separately owned (not owned by the same group of people or people) auto insurance businesses with diverse policies and criteria that still fall under the similar diplomatic guidelines.

Certain areas of Canada for example actually trickle down proper liberal policies, where places like British Columbia are monopolies in the auto insurance industry. There are only two majority governments and no conservative party.

The conservatives with conservative versus liberal values actually do not value civil liberties and freedom of choice and therefore do not try to implement the changes necessary for fair choice in liberal politics despite them representing the liberal parties in BC (since there is no conservative party).

Nobody wins in this situation except the dominating class but eventually this will also fall because of civil frustration, unrest, and mistrust. The best thing the Federal government could do in this case is to have more impact and interest in liberalizing the auto insurance industry across ALL of Canada. This same principal can be applied in the US and other areas.

Everyone knows the truth about the auto industry!

Hillary Clinton and the administration she was a part of were instrumental in helping companies like Ford and GM stay afloat, and at a time when they were badly needed.

According to the Washington Post,

Sanders argued that letting the auto industry go under was too big of a risk for middle-class workers — it could lower wages across all sectors of the economy and have a ripple effect on states like Vermont that were fairly far removed from the auto industry. He was quoted by Vermont Public Radio at the time as saying:

The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession, what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed? And that could spread, and I have serious concerns about that. I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.

“He was against the auto bailout,” Clinton said at a March 6 CNN debate in Flint, Mich. “In January of 2009, President-elect Obama asked everybody in the Congress to vote for the bailout. The money was there and had to be released in order to save the American auto industry and 4 million jobs and to begin the restructuring. We had the best year that the auto industry has had in a long time. I voted to save the auto industry. He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry.”

According to Politifact,

Clinton said Sanders “was against the auto bailout” and “voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry.”

Sanders did vote against a set of funds that financed most of the auto bailout — though the funds’ primary purpose was bailing out Wall Street firms, which Sanders strongly opposed.

The claim, though, leaves listeners with the impression that Sanders’ opposed bailing out the auto industry. But he voted in favor of providing auto companies with $14 billion, which was separate from the Wall Street bailout funds he opposed. That standalone measure failed.

The truth though is that great local businesses like the guys in my town who run a local auto shop would be in a lot of trouble had Bernie gotten his way!

The raging liberal has spoken……