APP - An Incoherent Truth

Mott the Hoople said:
How so? The government never ceased GM. GM went, hat in hand, begging for money and the tax payers bought controlling interest in the company. How is that either ceasing the means of production or socialism?
Click to expand...
Learn to spell "seize" and its variants, please.

Obama fired the CEO, for crissakes. GovCo seized power.
 
Watermark said:
The government isn't exercising voting powers and intends to sell of their stake when everything is over. It does not "amount" to "absolute nationalization". That is, again, nothing but hyperbole.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't matter if they did exercise their voting powers. It's still is not socialism or nationalization of this industry. Both imply coercion. GM was in no way coerced to sell controlling interest of their company. They employed a poor business model, went broke and were unable to pay their bills. That left them two choices. To sell controlling interest in their company to obtain the capital needed to survive or declare bankruptcy. They (emphasis added) chose the former. Any argument that this is socialism is either disingenous or that person does not understand what socialism is.
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
They went into bankrupcy because of the redundancy of their products and their inability to adapt to new wants from consumers.

The UAW was part of the problem as well. But I said that in my original post on this topic.
Click to expand...
Unions being part of GM's problem is grossly over stated. Their wages and legacy payments are competative with the Honda and Toyota facilities producing in this country for the domestic market so that's really a bogus argument and has been largely contradicted by Ford's recent success. GM's problem was purely their business model and the inability of their senior and entrenched management to change to meet changing market conditions. Ford made serious sacrifices to make those changes and are now reaping the benefits and guess what? Ford didn't have to go to the government, hat in hand begging for money either.

I mean this line of reasoning really upsets me. These people are blaming those who are least responsible (workers and the tax payers) and failing to hold those who are ultimately responsible (the managers of GM) accountable for their mismanagement. That's just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
why are in this forum....all you're doing is your same childish shit...

you didn't prove your point...all you did was show that i was right...that is, according to wiki....it has been argued and debated over for a couple of hundred years....like i said...no one has a solid theory and how much is a power grab you self masterbating pwner

edit: and you still have not shown how bush was responsible for the biggest power grab in history....dude, you just majorly self pwned yourself....IDIOT
Click to expand...
Come on you two. I want to apply a little peer pressure to the both of you and appeal to your better judgement. Please let's make an effort to make this forum work. Enough of the insults and pwnage and such. Lets discuss idea and concepts and argue differing points of view civilly.
 
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...
No it's not and you don't have your facts straight. The government, through the tax payers, BOUGHT this business. They did not SEIZE the means of production. We the tax payers EARNED the right to control this company because we paid for it. That is not socialism. It may not be good governance and it may not be good business but it is not socialism.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Learn to spell "seize" and its variants, please.

Obama fired the CEO, for crissakes. GovCo seized power.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I knew I had that wrong. Speaking of wrong. So are you. The tax payers in no way shape or form seized this company. They bought the controlling interest of a failed business and fired the CEO responsible for that failure. That's just sound business principle and if I had bought a failed business I would have done the same thing. Your argument is wrong and with out merit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Unions being part of GM's problem is grossly over stated. Their wages and legacy payments are competative with the Honda and Toyota facilities producing in this country ....
Click to expand...
Wrong-o. Honda and Toyota will have none of the UAW poison, hence none of their overblown costs.

To the Japanese automobile manufacturers, unions are the plague. And the United Auto Workers (UAW) admit to having a tough time getting new union members when they visit Japanese manufacturers' plants (called 'transplants') in the U.S. "People just aren’t interested," said one union organizer.
Click to expand...
http://blogs.automotive.com/6205652...-toyota-workers-are-not-interested/index.html
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I knew I had that wrong. Speaking of wrong. So are you. The tax payers in no way shape or form seized this company. They bought the controlling interest of a failed business and fired the CEO responsible for that failure. That's just sound business principle and if I had bought a failed business I would have done the same thing. Your argument is wrong and with out merit.
Click to expand...
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.
 
Southern Man said:
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.
Click to expand...

It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.
Click to expand...
Semantics. It doesn't matter, seizure or not. The government still took over the means of production, which means socialism. *shrug*
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.
Click to expand...

you're right about GM the company, they willingly gave control to obama....

can't say the same for obama's handling of the dealerships
 
You know, yurt, you actually do support this bill. You are just being deluded by right-wing demagogues and putting on your personal blinders - so good luck with your bankruptcy filing due to medical costs in 2020.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it's not and you don't have your facts straight. The government, through the tax payers, BOUGHT this business. They did not SEIZE the means of production. We the tax payers EARNED the right to control this company because we paid for it. That is not socialism. It may not be good governance and it may not be good business but it is not socialism.
Click to expand...

And the main interest in buying up that much company stock is not to control it; they want to sell the stock off as soon as possible.
 
Watermark said:
You know, yurt, you actually do support this bill. You are just being deluded by right-wing demagogues and putting on your personal blinders - so good luck with your bankruptcy filing due to medical costs in 2020.
Click to expand...

no, i support change to the current way or system...

i don't support obama's bill in its entirety...further...does anyone actually know the details of this bill and just the other day you were saying nothing is concrete yet...but here you are telling me is support "it"....when you just said the other day that it is finalized....

i have no idea how you think i am deluded by these demagogues you speak of...maybe because i simply don't cow to your ideals....you have to make excuses about it....so you make stuff up in order to sleep better at night because someone out there doesn't agree with your world view

and as to 2020......
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87soTsQjf5Y"]YouTube - In The Year 2000 - David Duchovny Edition[/ame]
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.
Click to expand...


They should have been forced into reorganization before Bush left office. Bush dropped the ball when he left it up to left wing ideologues to handle the auto industry. The auto industry, whose work force has been in the hip pocket of the democrat party for 60 years, could not be unhappy about all their loyalty coming back to help them after their union decimated the industry.
 
Southern Man said:
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It's ownership via a purchase which means those whom make the purchase have property rights. You are implying that we, the tax payers, do not have property rights. It is you, who are advocating socialism of the authoritarian kind.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
I think he's looking at it as hostile. I could be wrong, but like an act of aggression.
Click to expand...
SM's argument is a double standard. It's like the joke in Catch-22 where Major Major's father declares that subsidies for anyone but farmers is creeping socialism. SM is saying the us tax payers do not have property rights. In essence, he is the one advocating socialism by advocating a double standard that denies us, the tax payers, our property rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top