Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't get me wrong, it's an effective tactic. It's just depressing that people swallow their opinions whole from the mass media without doing any research themselves.
They're not the research type, as their media well know. Funny because they fancy themselves rugged individualists.
I'm sorry to tell you, but calling him a socialist all the time doesn't actually make it true. Show me an instance where he's taken for the federal government, or given the workers control over the means of production of a private company. Here's a hint, a trust fund is not control over the MoP.
Placing your own guy in as CEO and aboloshing bond holder rights/equity and turing it over to the unions, as was done with the auto takeover, certainly is controlling the MoP and giving union labor control. Killing the hydrogen car (done only after the Obama takeover) for the inefficient & overpriced Volt is controlling the MoP.
Placing your own guy in as CEO and aboloshing bond holder rights/equity and turing it over to the unions, as was done with the auto takeover, certainly is controlling the MoP and giving union labor control. Killing the hydrogen car (done only after the Obama takeover) for the inefficient & overpriced Volt is controlling the MoP.
Another person who does not understand what the means of production are, and ignored the fact that I pointed out that VEBA is totally removed from control over the MoP. This is increasingly boring. Obama isn't a socialist no matter how you try to spin the GM and Chrysler situations.
Would a socialist make it mandatory to buy private health insurance? Would a socialist give overextended, failing banks tons of money and allow them to remain privately owned?
Even the Libertarians knows the deal:
Free-market populism: Ron Paul says Obama's not 'socialist,' he's 'corporatist' | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Free-market-populism-Ron-Paul-says-Obamas-not-socialist-hes-corporatist-90538989.html - broken link)
The funny thing is that most of the coporatist policyes that Obama has persued where introduced under Bush and the Republicans everytihing from TARP to the bail out of banks and auto companys where began and introduced under a Republican administration in 2008.
Placing your own guy in as CEO and aboloshing bond holder rights/equity and turing it over to the unions, as was done with the auto takeover, certainly is controlling the MoP and giving union labor control. Killing the hydrogen car (done only after the Obama takeover) for the inefficient & overpriced Volt is controlling the MoP.
I love this attempt to portray the GM bailout as a hostile takeover rather than a highly courted white knight to the rescue. As for "giving" GM to the UAW... that's pretty funny considering the lengths the UAW went to grant concessions so that GM could keep its doors open.
Seems to me like this was about as capitalist as capitalism gets.
That's pathetic. I'm sorry...that's just pathetic. In your mind it is apparently impossible to disagree with a black man's ideaologies w/out hating him for his skin color.
Can you give us some actual documentation of that happening or are you just going to continue to slander them?
There are no words in the English language that could slander them.
I love this attempt to portray the GM bailout as a hostile takeover rather than a highly courted white knight to the rescue. As for "giving" GM to the UAW... that's pretty funny considering the lengths the UAW went to grant concessions so that GM could keep its doors open.
Seems to me like this was about as capitalist as capitalism gets.
I love this attempt to portray the GM bailout as a hostile takeover rather than a highly courted white knight to the rescue. As for "giving" GM to the UAW... that's pretty funny considering the lengths the UAW went to grant concessions so that GM could keep its doors open.
Seems to me like this was about as capitalist as capitalism gets.
In a non-Obama-driven bankruptcy, every union contract would have been void, period. Pension benefits would have fallen to the PBGC, at lower levels (no full pension for 50 year-olds, for example). The VEBA would have ranked equally with other creditors, in the same line. New owners would have rehired for all positions at $15 an hour/no union.
BILLIONS of dollars were given to the UAW interests over and above what the law required, and normal custom--and some of this came out of the pockets of bondholders and other creditors. The "new" GM is still burdened by high cost workers in the upper tier, and still has the old pension plan around its neck like a millstone.
It sure ain't capitalism to take from investors and give to the benefit of employees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
