What's happening with GM.

[Lanie]

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.

[Lord Undies]

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. 

[Lanie]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[Lord Undies]

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.          

[Lord Undies]

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.

[Flame]

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

[Splashdown]

The whole point of government is to follow the Constitution. Not make up rules "as they go along." 

[The Village Idiot]

GM is being nationalized.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

UAW is being subsidized.

fixed

[Eupher]

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.

[Lord Undies]

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.

[Crazy Horse]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DumbAss Tanker]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

whoops!

The veiled hand revealed: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,27081.0.html

[Willow]

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.

[TheSarge]

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.

[thundley4]

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.

[Crazy Horse]

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.

[thundley4]

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.

[Lanie]

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.

[TheSarge]

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]

[Sam Adams]

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."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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?

[Lord Undies]

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.