bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Wagoner, was asked to step down as a condition of receiving more bailout money. I know it's inconvenient for all the righties here to acknowledge that, but it is what it is. Edited March 31, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 No, it's not THE significant issue. Not to downplay it, because throwing taxpayer money at failed businesses is incredibly disturbing, but THE significant issue is a President who feels no compunction whatsoever about unilateral action, bypassing the legislative branch of government, while injecting the federal government into the private sector. This is a fundamental breakdown and an end run around not only Congress but the Constitution. This is something that should profoundly disturb all Americans and shakes the very roots of our economic and political systems. I'll save you a bunk at the re-education camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Just stop. Just because you've made a mistake in giving them the first few billion doesn't mean you continue to throw good money after bad. Let. them. die. Someone will pick up the slack. If not, it isn't a viable company anyway. Many UAW worker's jobs require no more skill than it does to make the fries at McDonalds. You want social and economic justice? Start there. If they lose their jobs and can't do anything else, then their decisions put them in that position. Â Perch's comments are also valid - what might have happened if the card check bill passed and FedEx had killed the purchase of those planes? Would the obamessiah have decided that purchase was essential to the economy, and had fedgov step in and take over FedEx? Tell me, where is the line? Where do you say "This far, but no further?" Using these justifications statist fedgov can nationalize anything, and some folks would be OK with that. Does no one have the right to keep what they've built and earned? Â I have no idea what the hell you are talking about... but I'm positive that you didn't read my post at all. Â Wagoner, was asked to step down as a condition of receiving more bailout money. I know it's inconvenient for all the righties here to acknowledge that, but it is what it is. Â Maybe if we post this again, people will read it. If GM wants more free money, they need different, more competent leadership. If GM doesn't want more free money, they are free to do whatever it is that they would like to do. Â How this is somehow "Have to agree here-Fascism! Unconstitutional" is beyond me. GM has the power to determine their own future, much as they always have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I have no idea what the hell you are talking about... but I'm positive that you didn't read my post at all.   Maybe if we post this again, people will read it. If GM wants more free money, they need different, more competent leadership. If GM doesn't want more free money, they are free to do whatever it is that they would like to do.  How this is somehow "Have to agree here-Fascism! Unconstitutional" is beyond me. GM has the power to determine their own future, much as they always have done.  I'm saying don't give them the money AND don't mess with them. Sheesh, gingers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 How this is somehow "Have to agree here-Fascism! Unconstitutional" is beyond me. GM has the power to determine their own future, much as they always have done. Â right, they can go tits up or become Government Motors. I would rather they not even have that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Â I'm saying don't give them the money AND don't mess with them. Sheesh, gingers... right, they can go tits up or become Government Motors. I would rather they not even have that option. I'm positive that you didn't read my post at all. I'm against the bailout of the auto industry. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 so you're against the bailout loans, but you're here defending the government takeover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 right, they can go tits up or become Government Motors. I would rather they not even have that option.  That's understandable....which is why I posted this:  Well, bailing out private corporations with taxpayers money is thesignificant issue. The president wouldn't be forcing anyone out or in if they didn't take govt money.  And as far as I can tell this:  What I'd really like to hear from all you libs is the constitutional justification for the obamessiah taking over car companies, or any bailouts for that matter. You killed shrub (rightly so) for his trampling of constitutional rights with Patriot, gitmo, etc. But now strangely silent about the constitution, or you offer justifications (just like the righties did defending shrub).  this:  I thought that the Patriot Act was going to be the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime. I have been proven wrong several times since...  this   Those FORD guys look pretty smart now. Keep the Gubment out of the private sector IMO, if your crappy business decisions force your company to fail someone else will be along shortly to pick up your customers. Capitalism. Look it up. Given history's many examples, can anyone really believe that state ism is the answer here ?  and this:  No, it's not THE significant issue. Not to downplay it, because throwing taxpayer money at failed businesses is incredibly disturbing, but THE significant issue is a President who feels no compunction whatsoever about unilateral action, bypassing the legislative branch of government, while injecting the federal government into the private sector. This is a fundamental breakdown and an end run around not only Congress but the Constitution. This is something that should profoundly disturb all Americans and shakes the very roots of our economic and political systems.   Is simply nothing but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Is simply nothing but  That you believe this does not surprise me in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If the gubment is a stakeholder in these private companies, regardless of how we got here, they should have a right, no an OBLIGATION to safeguard taxpayer dollars and provide some oversight in how the companies are planning to turn things around. If this involves keeping down bloated salaries and bonuses not based on performance then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) If the gubment is a stakeholder in these private companies, regardless of how we got here, they should have a right, no an OBLIGATION to safeguard taxpayer dollars and provide some oversight   Ding ding ding ding ding!  But it's so much more fun to wave your hands in the air and yell about the unconstitutionality. Which, no one here has made a cognitive argument about. Edited March 31, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 That's understandable....which is why I posted this: Well, bailing out private corporations with taxpayers money is thesignificant issue. The president wouldn't be forcing anyone out or in if they didn't take govt money. Â I agree that is the significant issue. once the government starts deciding which companies succeed and fail, it's a very steep slippery slope. Â which is why I don't really get atomic glossing right over that fact with the argument, "hey, as long as we're interceding on behalf of some corporations, it makes sense to push that intercession to the hilt." Â the government giving emergency bailout loans was the first step. the government using the need for those loans as an opportunity to impose decisions about who gets hired and fired, what the business model is, what the pay scale is, that is the next step -- which is where we are at now. if you think the first step is a bad idea, it seems like the second is even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barney wants more  The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Ding ding ding ding ding! But it's so much more fun to wave your hands in the air and yell socialism and about the unconstitutionality that doesn't exist.  Well, i'm not sure they should be involved. From what I was reading there is the commerce clause, but that wasn't meant to cover this type of federal / private interaction. I'll go on record saying I don't like it. Just like the financial industry however I will take intervention if the alternative is worse off all of us. Now I'm not so sure you can justify propping up car manufacturers like you can the credit markets. I do realize the argument is if you let it fail, the unemployment numbers will be hugh and ripple through the already broken economy. As far as the car industry goes however, what good is it to prop them up if there is simply no demand for their product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If the gubment is a stakeholder in these private companies, regardless of how we got here, they should have a right, no an OBLIGATION to safeguard taxpayer dollars and provide some oversight in how the companies are planning to turn things around. If this involves keeping down bloated salaries and bonuses not based on performance then so be it. Â right. in other words, we took the first step down that slippery slope, and you raised a weak objection! but since we took that first step may as well just f'n dive roll the rest of the way down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's a good thing we didn't elect that socialist McCain who wanted the government to buy up all the bad mortgages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's a good thing we didn't elect that socialist McCain who wanted the government to buy up all the bad mortgages. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's a good thing we didn't elect that socialist McCain who wanted the government to buy up all the bad mortgages. Â nice deflection. what do you think gethner's out doing as we speak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Is it time to call someone a name yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Ding ding ding ding ding! But it's so much more fun to wave your hands in the air and yell about the unconstitutionality. Which, no one here has made a cognitive argument about.  The Constitution grants specific powers to the Federal Government. Any powers not granted specifically to the Federal Government by the Constitution fall to States' rights.  Could you provide the Article and Section of the Constitution that specifies where the Federal Government has been granted the power to buy interest in privately owned companies?  I'll let you tackle that for a while before we go into more complex arguments like the function of the three branches of the Federal Government and the checks and balances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Is it time to call someone a name yet? Â Close, but not quite. Did you have a name in mind that you were prepard to use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 nice deflection. what do you think gethner's out doing as we speak? Â As we speak he just landed on air force one in England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 right. in other words, we took the first step down that slippery slope, and you raised a weak objection! but since we took that first step may as well just f'n dive roll the rest of the way down! Â Â If you put off the principle of being stubbornly opposed to any kind of govt. intervention, there is nothing weak about what Capn and Atomic are saying. It seemed the overwhelming opinion, amongst private industry analysts and other experts, was that a shake up at GM was needed awhile ago...probably before the first handout. The administration said, "We need to see A,B,C, D and E completed within the next X days if you want more money. Huh...you guys didn't meet any off these objectives.Well, if you want more money, get rid of the guy responsible for not meeting any of these." Â Whatever you think off the bailout, there are apparently completely rational and pragmatic reasons for the administration doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If the gubment is a stakeholder in these private companies, regardless of how we got here, they should have a right, no an OBLIGATION to safeguard taxpayer dollars and provide some oversight in how the companies are planning to turn things around. If this involves keeping down bloated salaries and bonuses not based on performance then so be it. Â Seriously? What on God's green earth has shown us they have any interest in safeguarding taxpayer dollars or the more prevelant borrowed Chinese money or providing oversight? Congress has fallen down in every way imaginable and yet you want to expand their ineptitude? Is it just that you're more comfortable with their long-standing incompetence than with the recent rise in private business failings? How can anyone argue that our government effectively solves problems while the near entirety of its resume reaks of dismal and expensive failure? Simply stunning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.