APP - An Incoherent Truth

General Motors is all the factories in America and all the raw materials used to make goods?
 
Fish said:
General Motors is all the factories in America and all the raw materials used to make goods?
Click to expand...

irrelevent....the government in fact owns and controls the means and production for one of america's largest auto manufacturers...approx 20%

that is in fact socialism and it was done wholly under obama
 
PostmodernProphet said:
or a case of Congress trying to prevent the president from taking action to protect the country in the manner he saw fit.....if Tipper hadn't been so hellbent on sucking up to the communists, none of it would have happened.....
Click to expand...



Ah yes, I keep forgetting about the success this country has had through the years in nation building. I suppose Nicaragua was a huge threat after all, and my God, El Salvador, Honduras and Grenada should have had us all quaking.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
irrelevent....the government in fact owns and controls the means and production for one of america's largest auto manufacturers...approx 20%

that is in fact socialism and it was done wholly under obama
Click to expand...

You can call it what you like but without it the US car companies would have become extinct.
 
tom prendergast said:
You can call it what you like but without it the US car companies would have become extinct.
Click to expand...

false

ford

telsa

etc...

and now.....chrysler is not even american....get your facts straight and you have no idea that GM will stay """american""" as it just might sell foreign just like chrysler
 
Fish said:
When did the government disallow private business and seize the means of production?
Click to expand...

they are certainly considering it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY"]YouTube - Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America)[/ame]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
am I supposed to be impressed?.....just reread the wiki article.....it doesn't even mention Iran Contra....so, how do you conclude the article disagrees with me....
Click to expand...

Because you were trying to claim that during the Reagan years it was the Democrats that were power grabbing (which is laughable) when the article specifically mentions Reagan as being the precursor to Bush's expansion of the unitary executive principle.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Because you were trying to claim that during the Reagan years it was the Democrats that were power grabbing (which is laughable) when the article specifically mentions Reagan as being the precursor to Bush's expansion of the unitary executive principle.
Click to expand...

do you recall the Democrats issuing orders to the President not to provide support to the Contras.....do you recall any time that a Congress has taken such a step prior to that date?.....woule that appear to you to be a deliberate action on the part of Congress to restrict the powers of the presidency?.....
 
Good Luck said:
So much for higher level discussions....
Click to expand...
Yea I know what you mean but don't give up on the forum. If we set the example and ignore the pettyness maybe we can change the tone, cause I have to admit (and I'm as guilty as anyone else of this), I'm really tired of the partisan bickering and name calling and would prefer a more intellectually satisfying exchange of ideas and differing views.
 
Ice Dancer said:
As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unaabted that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.

"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization. In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."
Click to expand...
But why shouldn't the government be in that position? They, meaning us the tax payers, bought controlling interest in the company. We, the taxpayers, as owner of the company have the right under our capitalist system to run it as we, the tax payers, see fit. It's not like the government took the company away from GM at the point of a gun. GM essentially employed a faulty business model, went broke and sold their company to us, the tax payers. Please, explain to me in any rational sense how this could be socialism? You're argument just doesn't make any sense. Where would this be different in principle then from farm subsidies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top