When his administration announced it wasn't going to bail out GM, I bet you thought that was a good thing, didn't you? Guess again.

Part of the restructuring terms from GM:
As soon as this exchange offer goes through, which it will, the US will be majority stakeholder in General Motors.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../27/c5278.html
 

The beginning of the bailouts started under his term. Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke would still be bailing shit out, except it would focus more on the top 2% income bracket.
 

Oh I agree completely.

But at least Bush was unpopular already. We're going to have to wait and see how shittily this turns out before Obama is finally condemned by the public.
 

Sadly, I don't believe it would have been any better. There's nothing that Geithner is doing that Paulson wouldn't be doing right now either. They are rough equivalents, and of the same mind.
 

The point of that thread is that we should have welfare because our goal is to help the poor and it doesn't matter whether or not welfare helps us reach that goal (basically a criticism of those who support the drug war).

I agree that a capitalist system would be superior to the American system, unfortunately there was only 1 candidate who supported a capitalist system and he was overwhelmingly defeated in a landslide.
 

wow

I wish Bush was still President.

did I just say that?
 

Americans are not intelligent enough to live in a capitalist society or under a libertarian government. In fact most human beings are not.
 

Human being are also not intelligent enough to effectually control the lives of the entire populace as the USSR has shown. However, humans have been shown to be greedy which is where capitalism comes in as progress is made through greed. All your latest thread like about the poor, state you want socialism to help others. Humans are not benevolent creatures. Progress is made through greed. That means capitalism.
 

How again were you a Ron Paul supporter? You should probably learn just because you're candidate doesn't get elected doesn't mean you should go from Libertarian to Communist.
 

Where was the beginning? I was unaware that we were living in a capitalist society.
 

People like the Hawaiian prove that the end of capitalism will be greeted with cheers and not protest as most of the populace is too fucking retarded to look into the past and see multiple times socialism has failed.
 

It fails because we fail to do it right. Because it is rarely socialism and is always more tyranical communism.
 

I recommend War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler if you wish to learn more about the subject.

It's as constitutional as an illegal domestic spying program.
 

I wish we would just nationalize the oil companies already, then the defense industries. Basically anyone who profits off of the US government should be nationalized.
 

Define "profits off the U.S. government", please. Then tell us all about the constitutionality of nationalizing industry even if they receive government monies.
 

Just for the record I've been against the bailouts since the start. I believe helping businesses out with tax relief and such which the government overlooks can be used but straight bailouts like this and owning businesses is totally obsurd. This whole system at the moment is going to hell. I don't know how you can call yourselves Americans. You know if this were 1960s you'd all be called communists and put on trial. And really you'd deserve it at this point I'm just like let it burn if one man can convince an entire population that socialism is ok let it burn.

I would bet my left arm that half the people who voted for Obama don't know what socialism is. I really hate him really truely do and I want to beat the fuck out of everyone wearing an Obama T shirt... I'm done here rant over.
 

"I've been against the bailouts from the start"

Thats funny I don't seem to recall you associating Bush with the anti-christ and the end of America. If my memory serves me right you never once critcized Bush for the bailout, it was always congress. People now try to criticize Bush after the fact to make it appear as if they were being consistent all along, when we all know that is complete bs.
 

I never knew there was an oppossite of the crowding out affect.
 

Alternatives: Something that Obama asked of the Republicans. They gave him nothing. I agree they should've been forced into bankruptcy (normal).

That's because I wasn't responding solely to you. Kaizen I believe, mentioned communism and others have been screaming fascism for awhile now.

This isn't socialism. We're not a socialist country. We're not going to become one because the government had to step in and help a few companies. I was unaware that the government taking over a few companies constituted the complete collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

No matter how many times you cry "socialism" it will not make it true. Let me make it clearer: When the government starts taking over every company then I'll join you in declaring it Socialism.

I wanted to address this specifically - GM and the other auto companies have been making shitty decisions for decades. Wagoner was one of those who were pushing for SUVs and other gas-guzzlers over more fuel-efficient vehicles -- on and on and on. It was right to kick him out of the position as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the government should've done it, but it was apparent the company wasn't going to make it's own changes.

Credibility? You're arguing in support of a failure.

Horrors. These aren't horrors. These are conservatives and others like you terrified for no reason.

These companies took taxpayer money and you're telling me it's wrong that the government has taken "control" of them.

What's the definition of "unproductive workers"? Could you explain that to me along with what you consider "overpaid gm workers"? In relation to how much the management makes would be a nice bonus as well.

Far be it from me to suggest that the company has become lost and bloated, no you're ready to blame it all on the workers.

Call me when the government has taken over all the banks and all the companies. Until then you and others are simply barking in the dark.
 

Neo. What exactly is it that you think I am arguing in support of? I'm confused here.

Oh, and by the way, re your entire previous post:

Neo says: "Call me when Obama appoints new CEOs to GM, and when the government actually takes over the company. Until then, I think I'll refrain from screaming Socialism."

Pizza responds:
Obama forces out GM CEO and replaces him with new one
Federal government to take over controlling stake in GM

And for good measure, a second example:
US Treasury ousts the majority of Citi's board of directors
Federal government becomes largest (40%) shareholder in Citi

Neo responds: "Oh. Ok. Call me when the government has taken over all the banks and all the companies. Until then you and others are simply barking in the dark. When the government starts taking over every company then I'll join you in declaring it Socialism."

See how ridiculous that looks? You can't change your argument as you go along, bud. And oh yeah, disregard the fact that no government that I'm aware of -even the socialist ones- has ever taken over every business within its borders.
 

That's because I never did criticize him for it. And did blame congress.

I never believed Bush was the anti christ or any of that shit you just said.

I have and still think it was congresses fault for allowing the bailouts to ever start. Just because GWB had one doesn't make it alright for Obama to do all this. It took Bush 8 years to get us to where we wear it took Obama under 90 days to more than double it.

If the current president was smart he would not follow Bush. Bush's while I never agreed with it was trying to help banks which were needed to keep money flowing and while it didn't go well (as I figured it wouldn't; it was to get money moving) Obama has bought companies that sell products, some big ones (companies). I never called any of this right and will continue to be against it. But to say what he is doing now is right is complete lunacy.
 

Exactly! Here is proof positive that you are just a partisan hack. I would love for everyone who doubted the accuracy of my claim about the Obama-bashers to please withdraw their statements as they have been directly contradicted by your post.

See how that works?

When Bush is in office, spending is the fault of CONGRESS. But when Obama is in office, it's his fault!

Does anybody else require further proof about my previous claims of how the Republicans are only crying now because their candidate is no longer in office?

Bush was just helping banks! Obama is the one eating babies!
 

I was just repeating my own position and what I think places no bearing as to what anyone else was arguing. I actually read no one elses posts so Idk what they even said.



I never said it was all Obama's fault even though it kinda is. It was alot of Bush's fault too but more the Congress in that case. Why Bush had not vetoed the Bailout idk he should have but the congress pushed the bill through without looking at it much at all. More than the newest ones but not much at all and for that I blame congress. There was plenty of blame to throw around for that first bailout on both parts. it should have ended then.

Obama I think is now more to blame here because now the bills arn't even being looked at and he isn't vetoing them and saying fix this shit and take time to make a good bill before he throws his rubber stamp on it. With all of the government branches now Democrat majority now whatever he signs is law. So don't you think he should be alittle more responsible about it?

As I said before I also blame Bush for the first bailout in the first place. He should have killed this nonsense then but I really don't think even he planned for it to go this far.

You mean like Ron Fail? I'm pissed cuz these bastards now in congress are turning us into some massive scale, bastardized, bankrupt version of Canada. I 100% completely blame congress WOOT 13% approval rating WHAT SHOULD WE DO???!?! LETS PUT MORE OF THOSE SONS OF BITCHES IN THERE>!!! BWAH!!!
 

I believe America is in far worse shape than Canada.

Your country is a banana republic. It has tried to literally defy the law of gravity and ran out of fuel doing it.
 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103694193

This is why one should not have voted for Obama, if for any other reason. He is going to give us liberal SC justices that will remain for god knows how long. I hope the republicans filibuster every nominee.
 

We can't anymore some douche just went Democrat so now the Democrats have the majority they need to stop it.
 

But... Everything that is happening is all part of the plan.
 

For the sake of brevity, it's called "Moving the Goalposts".

Not that anybody here knows or cares what logical fallacies are.
 

I knew there was a name for it...I wanted to call it "no true scotsman" but that wasn't exactly right.
 

It's not wrong, actually.

If we look at the scenario in logic:

• Socialism is ruinous. [inferred]
• Socialist action initiated by Obama indicates our government is becoming socialist.
• Obama is not enacting socialist policy and is not a socialist.
• Obama's policy is not ruinous.

Neo has a premise and conclusion ("Obama is not enacting socialist policy and is not a socialist.", "Obama's policy is not ruinous.") that he is altering the definition of the term "socialist action" in the premise ("Socialist action initiated by Obama indicates our government is becoming socialist.") so that he can cling to his falsified viewpoint and conclusion.

What he said was summarized as "socialist action is nationalizing a company and a CEO", then was shown examples. He then amended his statement to "true socialist action is nationalizing all companies and CEOs". He simply did not use the word "true" which tends to be the signature of the fallacy, but is not necessarily required.

Good eye, that's a commonly misunderstood fallacy.
 

I think the main difference is that the so called "fiscal conservatives" who are crying right now, well, wouldn't be. Pizza probably would, but not any of the obvious fakes like WindowlessHouse, Cajunman, AssKicker, remixedlife, etc. We definitely would not be hearing a word out of them about how the end of the world is coming and the sky is falling and all that. Not a fucking peep.

And yeah Grog, lets not forget that it was Bush and the Republicans who started this whole bailout bonanza in the first place. One might say that Obama is just following the precedent set by Bush, doubling the national debt and all.
 

Obama is clearly more extreme. Government will always bailout and pander to the outrage, but what Obama is doing is clearly a hidden doctrine of communism/fascism. He must actually believe in outright nationalization.

All states are bad, this one is just uniquely criminal in its domestic policies. I can't believe you support this evil, DE.
 

Explain to me why nationalization is worse than subsidization.

I voted for Ron Paul, and nobody complaining now did. Therefore, I feel absolutely vindicated for anything that happens. The real culprits are the people who didn't vote for Ron Paul yet are complaining about the exact same issues he was talking about and predicted to the fucking tee.

And yeah, as extreme and radical as that sounds, I really do believe that. If you didn't vote for Ron Paul then fuck you, end of story. You deserve everything that is happening right now, absolutely everything.
 

Other than Obama saying he wouldn't bail out GM and then effectively does, i dont really have a problem with the US owning 50% of GM as long as the products get better (which they are).
 

The only way their products are going to get any better and make them successful is if the Government can predict what the people want better than the foreign competition.

Of course the market would have had then go belly-up already and their assets sold off to investors who can operate a domestic auto company that can turn a profit.
 

So, why is this bad?
 

Government controlling the means of production -- the finance sector, now the automotive sector -- is the hard-and-fast, textbook definition of socialism. It may or may not be bad for you. The interesting thing to me is that we have not heard anything of the federal government's plan (if there is one) to reauction these companies to the public once "things return to normal" (if there is such a thing).
 

Nationalization is a step-up in terms of eliminating any market forces acting on a company. Subsidization is the same logic, but only on a smaller scale. Nationalization effectively takes it out of the realm of the market and puts it into a place where it is completely shielded from consequences without a proper means to track its successes.

This is a disaster.
 

Yeah. So I'm not seeing an issue here. The auto industry in the US has had decades to get their act together and GM decided to play chicken with the new administration and they lost. I'm not thrilled over this, but it's far better then simply giving them money we'll never see (or won't see for along time).

"THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" ....?

Is that what we're supposed to take away from this Pizza? What's sad is that this isn't a true nationalization. Personally I think it should've been an entire 100% nationalization of the company. I've very little sympathy for the auto industry (not-so-rare discussions at our family gatherings, and they're very opinionated on this subject ). If this is what it takes to get GM back together, then so be it. I also wanted the other companies to realize that this isn't some bullshit game where they get free money. As far as I'm concerned as soon as you accept money from the Government, then you've given up all right to complain about what happens to you afterward because of that action.

Crying -isms or whatever seems a bit far. What would you have proposed? Many (here) seem opposed to what Obama and his team are doing, but I've yet to see anything offered as an alternative. Even when Obama gave the Reps a challenge to come up with something better then retorted with some dinky little document criticizing the dems, rather then anything concrete.

What bothers me most, though, besides the government helping out these companies (they should've been forced into bankruptcy -- especially the auto industry), this just gives more ammo to Fox News and those asinine Tea Party fanatics. It saddens me that my father has fallen for their bullshit (Fox, not the tea freaks).

Have you caught The Daily Show at all recently? Jon and his team did a (sort of) funny (more sad) comparison of how Fox treated the left-wing protests during bush (similar numbers to the Tea people) and how they treat the Tea protesters... It was like a complete reversal. It's as if the Right has become everything they hated about the Left when they (the right) were in power, lol. The truth is that Tea Party protestors barely totaled a fourth of a million -- that's only 250k people. These are the people who felt so opposed to Obama and his Administration that they had to go protest a 3% tax increase -- although it seems many were there to oppose Obama himself, rather than only the tax issue. To bad these people are living in a fantasy world. Obama's approval is still high, and it's not falling.

Obama is not a fascist, nor is he a communist; repeating this shit over and over and over again isn't going to make it anymore true then, say, the truthers who claim 9/11 was an inside job. As for the claim this is socialism -- Pizza are you going to argue semantics now? Call me when Obama appoints new CEOs to GM, and when the government actually takes over the company. Until then, I think I'll refrain from screaming Socialism.

rambling, sorry. I just find myself unable to take any of this seriously. If this is truly a reversal and this is how liberals acted during bush I can see how easy it is to get annoyed with this sort of crap. Obama's been in office for, what, 100~ days? Conservatives here are already calling for his failure, and by their actions you'd think that America was ready to rise up and oust him.

However I've got news for you. Bush's approval rating was one of the lowest in the history of this country, and many people wanted to see him "ousted" (impeached would be enough for me) but that didn't happen at all. So if Bush was able to get away with everything he and Cheney pulled off, I think you guys have got a rather long and grueling trek ahead of you to get Obama ousted.

So what, Kaizen, was the answer to keep giving them money? What the hell should've happened? Should the government have forced GM into bankruptcy completely, and given the families affected by such a move a nice "FUCK YOU" card as well?

GM is going to be forced into restructuring, which is a good thing. Regardless, however, I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to buy into the idea that the US is going to stay a majority stakeholder in the company. I would imagine their first goal after their restructuring would be to get away from the government. Since, personally, it doesn't seem like such a good idea to keep the government as a majority stakeholder -- could be me though.

Let me know, guys, when the government starts appointing CEOs and taking over the company completely though.
 

You don't need 100% ownership in a company to have it be nationalization, just as you don't need 100 votes in the Senate to fuck shit up. The SEC regulatory body considers you a "considerably large shareholder" if you own just 3-10% of a company, and if you are the federal government you don't even need that much to bully your citizens around.

Are you really trying to claim that no one here has offered an alternative? I assure you, you are alone in that loony opinion, my friend. But in case you forgot, I'll repeat what I proposed- to use our bankruptcy law the way it was intended. This begins by allowing the company an honest restructuring (for the benefit of the bondholders at large, people's 401K's etc, not the company itself) rather than having the federal government use GM's relatively miniscule $11 billion in Treasury debt as leverage to bully an outrageous 50% of shares out of the restructuring.

I don't know why you're throwing out terms like "communist" that I've never used and then accusing me of repeating them "over and over." That's pretty insulting to my intelligence and its misleading to everyone else.

With regard to my claim that this is socialism - it is not semantics, it is hard-and-fast, and there there is no disputing that. The textbook definition of socialism as MW has it is "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." And that is what we are experiencing.

You are so out of the loop that it's sad. "Call me when Obama appoints new CEOs and when the government actually takes over the company." OK, I will, that time is not too far down the road. And while we are waiting, let's take a look at an example that has already happened. On February 27, 2009 the federal government took a share conversion raising its common stock ownership stake in Citigroup to 40%. Immediately following this, the federal government forced out the current Citi board of directors and demanded that their own directors were put in place.

And oh yeah, your cry about the federal government has yet to appoint a new CEO of GM - did you forget that Obama four weeks ago forced the resignation of Rick Wagoner, the auto company's CEO? You're losing all your credibility Neo; try to keep up with the news.

I'm dumbfounded, Neo. These horrors have already happened, and they continue as we speak. I hope the few examples I've given in this thread make the point clearly to you. If you are opposed to this type of government intervention, the time is now to rally against it. You have a friend in me- do you have such a thing in Obama?
 

No subsidies, no nationalization. So you want to support the families of unproductive workers? Okay, so you just gave the entire population of America a big "FUCK YOU" card as they know have to support all overpaid GM workers.

GM should be a victim of market forces and die like the useless pig it is.

You do not understand the anatomy of governmnet because you are still under the delusion its primary concern is the general populace. It is an entity interested in power, and its planners want nothing more than to control GM and all the banks and steer them as they see fit.

Wow. Get with the program, Neo.
 

The same problem occurs under subsidization. But unlike nationalization, you now have the unique problem of both propping the company up against market forces AND not having any kind of control over it. You are in effect a "forced shareholder." You are forced into being a shareholder of a company that you have no control over.

A company being subsidized by the government is not in the free market, since there is nothing "free" about forcing taxpayers to subsidize a company that can't compete on it's own. At least with nationalization we have the option of selling the company or just closing the motherfucker down. Subsidization usually continues forever, whereas nationalization tends to destroy itself.
 

DE I've told you multiple times I didn't like Bush and yet to keep insisting if he still was in power or if the republicans were in power, I'd have no problem with them doing the same thing. The thing is I would and I criticized the bailout when Bush did it. I know you compromised your old core beliefs because you want to be a groupie of the Democrats, but you need to learn not everyone who criticizes the Obama administration is a hardcore right-winger neoconservative.
 

Don't bother explaining. DE is a troll. If you don't fit into DE's definition of opposition (which is based on entirely on himself), then he he is going to claim you supported Bush's spending. The same thing applies if you didn't vote for Rube Paul. It's just a straw man he employs to justify his vote for Obama.
 

Ok AssKicker, I don't really know you, but WindowlessHouse definitely falls into the category of partisan crybaby who feels disenfranchised because his party is out of power.