The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Lanie on April 01, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
-
I see a lot of posts from people who are offended by Washington placing rules on GM. Some of those rules might be offensive, but here's my thing.
When Individuals seek assistance from the government, they have to agree to governmental terms. People who are on WIC cannot use it to buy beer and junk food. I read something a few days ago saying that welfare recipients (can't remember if it was state or nationwide) would have to get drug testing if they wanted assistance. Some programs, one has to save all their receipts to show they really can't pay for something to get assistance.
When another country asks for our assistance, they have to agree to our terms. We're actually criticized for the way we helped Europe after WWII because even though we assisted them with getting their economy back on their feet, we sort of gave the incentives a US bias. I think they had to give some preference to working with our companies for a while. The USSR could have gotten our assistance if they would have agreed to become Capitalist, and we're criticized for that by some liberals. From everything I've heard, our assistance to Israel is based on the condition that they cut social programs. Ditto with some other countries.
So individuals and other countries have to agree to our terms if they want our money. Why should American companies be any different?
On another note, I do think we're in danger of Socialism. Not because liberals want it but because some companies appear to want it. *Some* Liberals have been screaming they want Socialism for years now. They never got their way. Now that companies need to be bailed out, I think it could actually happen.
Just wanted to seek input. I don't have time to really debate people on it because I have to get caught up on some stuff.
-
With the examples you provided (WIC, etc.), all the rules were spelled out in the legislation that created the program. These rules came about by agreement through debate and reasoning. That's the way it is suppose to work.
This GM, et al, gimme is quite different. Everything seems to be made up as we go along. Our unqualified and anti-American majority in congress, along with that ridiculous puppet in the White House, appear to be children playing a made-up game where the rules are thought up on the fly. It's absurd.
Largely, GM's problems are government creations. It goes back many decades. The government owes GM and other automakers a hell of a lot more than these bailouts. The government owes an admission of guilt. That would be the real start of "economic recovery". We aren't going to get anywhere without honesty, and honesty is something the socialists cannot afford.
-
With the examples you provided (WIC, etc.), all the rules were spelled out in the legislation that created the program. These rules came about by agreement through debate and reasoning. That's the way it is suppose to work.
This GM, et al, gimme is quite different. Everything seems to be made up as we go along. Our unqualified and anti-American majority in congress, along with that ridiculous puppet in the White House, appear to be children playing a made-up game where the rules are thought up on the fly. It's absurd.
Largely, GM's problems are government creations. It goes back many decades. The government owes GM and other automakers a hell of a lot more than these bailouts. The government owes an admission of guilt. That would be the real start of "economic recovery". We aren't going to get anywhere without honesty, and honesty is something the socialists cannot afford.
I think this government bailout thing is pretty new. That's why rules are made as we go along. Doesn't GM still have the option of saying they won't take the money after all, that they'll get themselve out of trouble?
What problems of GM's are government creations? I keep thinking a major problem with the companies asking for money is that they had unions, but the unions are practically a company itself. I don't think there was government involvement on that one. I could be wrong though.
-
So you approve of politicians putting their cronies in to run multinational corporations?
Because you better ****ing believe Obama won't allow any sacrifices to be demanded of his political lifeblood, the UAW. Those crooks will be propped-up on our money to get him re-elected.
Oh yeah, this is unconstitutional too. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
-
I think this government bailout thing is pretty new. That's why rules are made as we go along. Doesn't GM still have the option of saying they won't take the money after all, that they'll get themselve out of trouble?
What problems of GM's are government creations? I keep thinking a major problem with the companies asking for money is that they had unions, but the unions are practically a company itself. I don't think there was government involvement on that one. I could be wrong though.
The government has been sticking its unwanted nose in Detroit's business since Henry Ford began to utilize the assembly line. The involvement became a ridiculous intrusion after unionization, and an absurdity after the Earth Worshippers Movement, in its quest to destroy capitalism, gained political favor.
The federal government has no reason or authority to be setting milage standards or acting as the union's protective big brother. The federal government, as designed, has a very limited area, like a river, in which to contain itself. It has been allowed to swell and swell until it has breached its banks and broken the levees intended to control its forces.
Like it or not, understand it or not, the federal government holds 90% of the blame for every one of our current social and economic ills. It is vital to understand that supporting big federal government (liberalism) makes one an enemy of the United States of America and its Constitution. It really is that simple.
-
I think this government bailout thing is pretty new. That's why rules are made as we go along.
Being new is no excuse for lack of deliberation. The US Congress is suppose to be the most intelligent and forthright legislative body the world has ever known. Now it seems all it is is a bunch of silly mindless socialist twits who are either really stupid or seriously evil. Either way, there is nothing there to admire or respect.
Doesn't GM still have the option of saying they won't take the money after all, that they'll get themselve out of trouble?
I'm not sure GM had the option from the start. I wish they would tell Washington to go to hell - it would be the right thing to do as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, the government owes GM the money and an admission of guilt - and then the promise to leave the auto industry the F*CK alone to sink or swim.
-
The federal government has no reason or authority to be setting milage standards or acting as the union's protective big brother. The federal government, as designed, has a very limited area, like a river, in which to contain itself. It has been allowed to swell and swell until it has breached its banks and broken the levees intended to control its forces.
Perfect analogy, Undies. hi5
-
The whole point of government is to follow the Constitution. Not make up rules "as they go along." :whatever:
-
GM is being nationalized.
-
UAW is being subsidized.
fixed
-
Lanie, I hope the message is increasingly clear.
While the government, in its pompous haughtiness, seeks to impose its will on you, me, and GM, its purpose for doing so isn't to "level the playing field" or to provide "necessary restrictions" or to otherwise point toward the legislation and trumpet, "See, taxpayers? See what we're doing FOR YOU?!?", the government's sole purpose is to justify its own existence.
If it weren't for this kind of rape and this kind of illegitimate action that it routinely takes, the government wouldn't have a whole lot to do other than stare at themselves while riding the elevators up and down.
Ronald Reagan said it best - the government isn't the answer to the problem, the government IS the problem.
-
Lanie, I hope the message is increasingly clear.
While the government, in its pompous haughtiness, seeks to impose its will on you, me, and GM, its purpose for doing so isn't to "level the playing field" or to provide "necessary restrictions" or to otherwise point toward the legislation and trumpet, "See, taxpayers? See what we're doing FOR YOU?!?", the government's sole purpose is to justify its own existence.
If it weren't for this kind of rape and this kind of illegitimate action that it routinely takes, the government wouldn't have a whole lot to do other than stare at themselves while riding the elevators up and down.
Ronald Reagan said it best - the government isn't the answer to the problem, the government IS the problem.
So true. Every time I hear about someone wanting to go to Washington to "make a difference" or cause "change", I want to puke. The only valid reason to want to go to Washington is to reverse all the differences and changes that have been inflicted upon our nation and to stand guard over the status quo.
-
Undies answered all...................................If it was missed, your thoughts are Bullshit on this mater.
If you want to discuss what to do................let them FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I have a feeling the Administration is going to be using some whored-up version of the phrase "We had to destroy it in order to save it" on this one before it's over.
-
whoops!
The veiled hand revealed: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,27081.0.html
-
I see a lot of posts from people who are offended by Washington placing rules on GM. Some of those rules might be offensive, but here's my thing.
When Individuals seek assistance from the government, they have to agree to governmental terms. People who are on WIC cannot use it to buy beer and junk food. I read something a few days ago saying that welfare recipients (can't remember if it was state or nationwide) would have to get drug testing if they wanted assistance. Some programs, one has to save all their receipts to show they really can't pay for something to get assistance.
When another country asks for our assistance, they have to agree to our terms. We're actually criticized for the way we helped Europe after WWII because even though we assisted them with getting their economy back on their feet, we sort of gave the incentives a US bias. I think they had to give some preference to working with our companies for a while. The USSR could have gotten our assistance if they would have agreed to become Capitalist, and we're criticized for that by some liberals. From everything I've heard, our assistance to Israel is based on the condition that they cut social programs. Ditto with some other countries.
So individuals and other countries have to agree to our terms if they want our money. Why should American companies be any different?
On another note, I do think we're in danger of Socialism. Not because liberals want it but because some companies appear to want it. *Some* Liberals have been screaming they want Socialism for years now. They never got their way. Now that companies need to be bailed out, I think it could actually happen.
Just wanted to seek input. I don't have time to really debate people on it because I have to get caught up on some stuff.
I would buy that load of crap if the obamalama put FM and FM on notice that they would not be handing out bonus money and if the obamalama fired the CEO of FM and FM until that happens then it's just vengenance sayteth the obamalama.
-
What problems of GM's are government creations?
Forcing their CEO to step down. The Feds rescued Chrysler in the early 80's. But unlike what's happening now...Lee Iacoca wasn't asked to resign and they were allowed to repay the money loaned to them.
If what Obama is doing to the banks trying to repay their TARP money with interest...he's more interested in controlling the business sector (i.e. Nationalization) than actually helping them. The money is his way in to control them.
I keep thinking a major problem with the companies asking for money is that they had unions, but the unions are practically a company itself. I don't think there was government involvement on that one. I could be wrong though.
The Unions are not being forced to make any concessions. The head of the UAW wasn't asked to resign because of union deals with the auto makers that are bleeding the industry dry.
No asking for the head of GM on a pike wasn't enough...now they want the head of Bank of America fired by the Federal Government too.
The Unions donate heavily and exclusively to the DNC. Now they are demanding...and apparently getting...repayment for their loyalty.
-
The Unions donate heavily and exclusively to the DNC. Now they are demanding...and apparently getting...repayment for their loyalty.
Their big payback will come if the 'card check" bill is passed.
-
Their big payback will come if the 'card check" bill is passed.
At this point in time I don't see it getting through the Senate.
-
At this point in time I don't see it getting through the Senate.
I hope not, that would just be another nail in the coffin of the economy.
-
Forcing their CEO to step down. The Feds rescued Chrysler in the early 80's. But unlike what's happening now...Lee Iacoca wasn't asked to resign and they were allowed to repay the money loaned to them.
If what Obama is doing to the banks trying to repay their TARP money with interest...he's more interested in controlling the business sector (i.e. Nationalization) than actually helping them. The money is his way in to control them.
The Unions are not being forced to make any concessions. The head of the UAW wasn't asked to resign because of union deals with the auto makers that are bleeding the industry dry.
No asking for the head of GM on a pike wasn't enough...now they want the head of Bank of America fired by the Federal Government too.
The Unions donate heavily and exclusively to the DNC. Now they are demanding...and apparently getting...repayment for their loyalty.
I do think telling them not to allow unions anymore would have been a good idea (because it's not like those at Toyota, who doesn't have a union make bad money). Bush was trying to put conditions on them related to that. This of course happened a little late for him.
-
I do think telling them not to allow unions anymore would have been a good idea (because it's not like those at Toyota, who doesn't have a union make bad money).
I didn't say anything close to that. Go back and read what I said again.
Bush was trying to put conditions on them related to that. This of course happened a little late for him.
He was? When?
[/quote]
-
Those of you who want a return to the Constitution don't get it. The Constitution is dead. I don't know when it died But it's dead. Of course we are making it up as we go along. There's nothing guiding us any more, except the will and wisdom on those in power.
As for GM and whatever other company that may be unfortunate to attract Obama's attention: They are toast. Obama may be making decisions based on economic and financial realities today, but he will be making decisions based on his political whims tomorrow, and call it "the will of the people."
-
I do think telling them not to allow unions anymore would have been a good idea (because it's not like those at Toyota, who doesn't have a union make bad money). Bush was trying to put conditions on them related to that. This of course happened a little late for him.
Did you hear your Dear Leader is refusing TARP repayment by banks as a means to legitamize his keeping his meat hooks in them?
-
Did you hear your Dear Leader is refusing TARP repayment by banks as a means to legitamize his keeping his meat hooks in them?
I don't know why these bankers don't put the money in escrow accounts in their own banks payable to the US treasury and tell the criminal element in the White House to shove it up their Love Canal. If they are scared of "audits", there is a way around that too. The federal bank "examiners" don't have to be allowed to work in the dark. The banks are entitled to an independent audit free from thuggery/socialist bias.
There is the argument about how "if the banks have nothing to hide....", but that doesn't work when the element in charge of the government audit is not beyond criminality, has a wellknown agenda, and has predetermined the outcome.
It is time for one of these captains of banking to stand up to the thug posse in the White House and call their bluff.
-
It would help if the MSM would report on the refusal of TARP repayments. So far I've only seen it on blogs and FNC. Granted , I don't watch any other news, but it seems like this would be a big story.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/MrSnuggleBunny/man-is-black.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/MrSnuggleBunny/man-is-black.jpg)
Mystery? Misery? :uhsure:
-
If the EPA hadn't forced "emissions control" upon our auto companies, they wouldn't have had any trouble raising the mileage rates. What's happened to them was that the Dim elements in government screwed them with the emissions control crap, then the Dim elements in unions screwed them with endless demands...and when they were finally pushed over the edge by the Dim-goverment demands on mileage and the Dim-government-created recession from the Dim-written CRA, the Dim-government decided to own them. They'd have been far better off going through bankruptcy. That would have set the judiciary against the unions and the feds, and GM could have snuck away relatively whole. It would also have avoided the irrational and horrifying spectacle of the President of the United States firing the CEO of a private company...as though he, personally, owned that company. What he did was :bird: the board and every stock owner.
-
(http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/auto.gif)
-
It would help if the MSM would report on the refusal of TARP repayments. So far I've only seen it on blogs and FNC. Granted , I don't watch any other news, but it seems like this would be a big story.
The banks need to spend a bit of money on huge outdoor advertising, tell the folks they'd like to repay the loan but this regime refuses to allow it.. buncha damn Marxists.
-
The banks need to spend a bit of money on huge outdoor advertising, tell the folks they'd like to repay the loan but this regime refuses to allow it.. buncha damn Marxists.
Would their advertising costs be tax deductible ? :rotf:
-
It would also have avoided the irrational and horrifying spectacle of the President of the United States firing the CEO of a private company...as though he, personally, owned that company. What he did was :bird: the board and every stock owner.
Just dipping the toes into that National Socialist (aka fascist) pool, seeing if the people are willing to jump in...
-
Would their advertising costs be tax deductible ? :rotf:
yep! operating costs.. obamalama dosen't want them to give the money back.. that way he and the DUmbocrats can tell them who to loan money to.. which is what put us in this frickin mess to begin with! cripes!
-
Question for Lamie--ur--sorry--Lanie:
You seem to think that because GM took money from the government the president, with no constitutional authority, can re-order the board of directors, set standards etc.
GM currently advertises on the Rush Limbaugh show.
What if the dems insisted GM stop advertising on his show because they didn't want "their" company associated with his content but the marketing dept. said they still wanted to reach 20 to 30 million listeners each week?
Constitutionally, legally and ethically: Who should prevail?
-
Question for Lamie--ur--sorry--Lanie:
You seem to think that because GM took money from the government the president, with no constitutional authority, can re-order the board of directors, set standards etc.
GM currently advertises on the Rush Limbaugh show.
What if the dems insisted GM stop advertising on his show because they didn't want "their" company associated with his content but the marketing dept. said they still wanted to reach 20 to 30 million listeners each week?
Constitutionally, legally and ethically: Who should prevail?
That's a trick question, because none of those three things apply to 0Bama, at least in the eyes of his worshipers.
-
did you see the new GM-Segway vehicle??
Its going to be the future I guess.
-
can anyone tell me what a "targeted bankruptcy" is? There was some union fellow on Fox this morning saying GM was looking at targeted bankruptch that would put some sort of pressure on the bond holders and force them to pay. I don't understand what he is talking about.
-
can anyone tell me what a "targeted bankruptcy" is? There was some union fellow on Fox this morning saying GM was looking at targeted bankruptch that would put some sort of pressure on the bond holders and force them to pay. I don't understand what he is talking about.
My understanding is GM wants to isolate their various divisions. They want to carry on with the good and bankrupt the bad.
-
can anyone tell me what a "targeted bankruptcy" is? There was some union fellow on Fox this morning saying GM was looking at targeted bankruptch that would put some sort of pressure on the bond holders and force them to pay. I don't understand what he is talking about.
I thought a bond holder would be someone that has loaned GM money and is wanting their money back. Knowing the current criminal admisministration their idea of a targeted bankruptcy would leave most bond holders holding the bag, while letting the UAW continue under their current contracts. 0Bama cannot let the UAW take a hit on this, for purely political reasons.
-
can anyone tell me what a "targeted bankruptcy" is? There was some union fellow on Fox this morning saying GM was looking at targeted bankruptch that would put some sort of pressure on the bond holders and force them to pay. I don't understand what he is talking about.
its not a real bankruptcy but a political ones. Its meant to protect the UAW jobs at Government Motors. O will force them to close down their 'profitable' truck and SUV plants in southern states and promose them more taxpayer support I am guessing.
-
its not a real bankruptcy but a political ones. Its meant to protect the UAW jobs at Government Motors. O will force them to close down their 'profitable' truck and SUV plants in southern states and promose them more taxpayer support I am guessing.
I went to fox to get the video,, and for some reason it skips over and will not load. Methinks someone is going to get screwed over..http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=4257723&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/index.html
it's titled "car trouble GM inches toward bankruptcy."
bondholder
Definition
The owner of a bond. In addition to receiving regular interest payments and the return of principal, bondholders are given precedence over stockholders in case of asset liquidation.
-
I went to fox to get the video,, and for some reason it skips over and will not load. Methinks someone is going to get screwed over..http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=4257723&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/index.html
it's titled "car trouble GM inches toward bankruptcy."
bondholder
Definition
The owner of a bond. In addition to receiving regular interest payments and the return of principal, bondholders are given precedence over stockholders in case of asset liquidation.
I just tried that video in 3 separate browsers, and they all skipped to the next story. WTF?
-
I just tried that video in 3 separate browsers, and they all skipped to the next story. WTF?
curious isn't it?
-
curious isn't it?
Definitely since I've haven't seen Fox hide things like that before.
-
Ha! a lady from Canada sent me a link that works! Try this.
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22077151/car-trouble.htm