34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:28 pm
How many bankrupt American companies could have been saved with the amount of money being used to save GM and how many jobs would have been saved.

Were those companies penalised for being small and spread out in the name of Big is Beautiful when Big has just screwed up big-time?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:35 pm
@spendius,


Other bankrupt American companies don't have Union members that are forced to vote Democrat in every single election.
This alone makes all other bankrupt or about to be bankrupt American companies worthless to Obama.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You'll have to prove to me that the economy wouldn't have tanked worse than it already has to back up your point. And you can't. I would have preferred to take the inevitable medicine without spending more than a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that the government didn't have and not have much of anything to show for it or not even knowing where most of it went.


We had an experiment in letting the economy tank and doing nothing about it; see, Hoover, Herbert. We don't need a replay in order to satisfy your ideology.


Cycloptichorn


Did you cut your history classes when the Hoover administration was discussed? If you had, you would have learned that it was Hoover's using of slogans like 'too big to fail' (sound familiar?) and attempts to prop up failing financial institutions and banks that exacerbated the inevitable recession and certainly helped drive it into deep depression. And it was FDR's attempt to spend us out of the depression that almost certainly lengthened it and slowed our recovery.

The current administration is trying nothing new here. They are resurrecting those old failed policies of the Hoover and FDR administrations and trotting them out to the gullible as the salvation of the nation. They weren't then. They won't be now.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You'll have to prove to me that the economy wouldn't have tanked worse than it already has to back up your point. And you can't. I would have preferred to take the inevitable medicine without spending more than a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that the government didn't have and not have much of anything to show for it or not even knowing where most of it went.


We had an experiment in letting the economy tank and doing nothing about it; see, Hoover, Herbert. We don't need a replay in order to satisfy your ideology.


Cycloptichorn


Did you cut your history classes when the Hoover administration was discussed? If you had, you would have learned that it was Hoover's using of slogans like 'too big to fail' (sound familiar?) and attempts to prop up failing financial institutions and banks that exacerbated the inevitable recession and certainly helped drive it into deep depression. And it was FDR's attempt to spend us out of the depression that almost certainly lengthened it and slowed our recovery.


I know that's what you Conservatives like to believe, but no, most historians don't agree with you on this one.

Quote:
The current administration is trying nothing new here. They are resurrecting those old failed policies of the Hoover and FDR administrations and trotting them out to the gullible as the salvation of the nation. They weren't then. They won't be now.


You are 100% incorrect. Hoover denied the use of Legislative relief, to the detriment of the country. Obama is not denying the use of Legislative relief, in fact, he is doing quite the opposite. Don't you remember criticizing him for this? Or do you just know little about Hoover?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:55 pm
Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 01:59 pm
@cjhsa,
You need to join us over on the Conservatism thread CJ. While I think stopping short of treason, Ican is the lone but persistent voice there spelling out a fairly competent rationale for why the President should and must be impeached. Smile

To Cyclop, I'll just say keep on beating that drum no matter how short of the truth it may be. It seems to comfort you so.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Ican is the lone but persistent voice there spelling out a fairly competent rationale for why the President should and must be impeached. Smile


Right. Ican proposes to impeach the President because, according to ican, any progressive tax system is unconstitutional.

Apparently that passes as rational in conservative circles.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:08 pm
Disclaimer to OE's post: He (OE) has that pretty much wrong.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

You need to join us over on the Conservatism thread CJ. While I think stopping short of treason, Ican is the lone but persistent voice there spelling out a fairly competent rationale for why the President should and must be impeached. Smile

To Cyclop, I'll just say keep on beating that drum no matter how short of the truth it may be. It seems to comfort you so.


Are you claiming that Hoover did, in fact, seek legislative relief to their financial crisis, in the way that Obama has done? And that their responses are similar?

Just want to be real clear about what you are claiming here. Because, if that's not what you are claiming, surely you will admit that your above post which said exactly that (that Obama is doing what Hoover did) was factually incorrect. If not, what is one to assume, other than the fact that you like to make incorrect statements and then retreat into ad hominem and other logical fallacies as soon as you are challenged on them?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
You don't really really read the stuff ican posts, do you?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:13 pm
@cjhsa,
I'm reluctant to use a word like treason but if I were to I would say selling our technology to governments who have their workers on a bowl of rice a day comes closer than Mr Obama's actions. He is dealing with that "treason".

The Chinese kept their silkworm secret for a thousand years.

The Popes would never have allowed such things to happen.

It happened here. When the weaving trade got onto the new technologies some silly sod had the bright idea of selling all the old looms, fantastic machines actually, to far away countries instead of melting them down. Within five years cheap woven imports flooded the country and a good deal of the new technology went the same way. Now we let foreigners take pictures of our castles and palaces to make a living.

It is amazing how cheap container transport is over thousands of miles. One shirt- about 0.001 cents.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:17 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

You don't really really read the stuff ican posts, do you?


Yes I do. The difference between you and Ican, or between you and me, for that matter is that Ican and I can actually discuss the stuff he posts or that I post and disagree on it and both come away with somewhat different or at least broader perspectives than we had before. And I recognize that a single post is not the sum total of somebody's thoughts on much of anything, and realize a discussion over time can include numerous facets and concepts all of which are necessary to sum up the full context of a person's thoughts on a subject.

Taking insulting shots at Ican or anybody, however, takes so little imagination, intelligence, or creativity, I can't imagine how that broadens anybody's perspective on anything, but I suppose it does serve the purpose to ensure that one's perspectives are not broadened. I have learned to chalk that kindof thing up to small mindedness, ignorance, and general mean spiritedness and try not to pay much attention to it these days. You've probably not noticed that Ican rarely, if ever, engages in that sort of thing.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes I do. The difference between you and Ican, or between you and me, for that matter is that Ican and I can actually discuss the stuff he posts or that I post and disagree on it and both come away with somewhat different or at least broader perspectives than we had before. And I recognize that a single post is not the sum total of somebody's thoughts on much of anything, and realize a discussion over time can include numerous facets and concepts all of which are necessary to sum up the full context of a person's thoughts on a subject.


If you think that there was only "a single post" where ican was making the argument that Obama was violating the Constitutiong because the Constitution, according to ican, only allows for a flat tax system, then you clearly don't read what ican posts. His repeated calls for the impeachment of Obama are all over the "conservatism" thread. Makes one wonder whether you are you ignoring all his posts on purpose.

However, I'll grant you that he recently added calls for secession to his repertoire of conservative values.


Foxfyre wrote:
Taking insulting shots at Ican or anybody, however, takes so little imagination, intelligence, or creativity, I can't imagine how that broadens anybody's perspective on anything, but I suppose it does serve the purpose to ensure that one's perspectives are not broadened.


How is representing ican's statements insulting to ican? I think your ignorance of what he spends so much time on the very thread you yourself started is far more insulting than any recounting of the ideas ican propagates over there.


Foxfyre wrote:
I have learned to chalk that kindof thing up to small mindedness, ignorance, and general mean spiritedness and try not to pay much attention to it these days. You've probably not noticed that Ican rarely, if ever, engages in that sort of thing.


No, ican usually limits himself to calling the Obama administration "gangsters" or making up creative names for his imaginary enemies. You, on the other hand, seem to take a lot of pleasure in calling other people small minded, ignorant or mean spirited.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:59 pm
@old europe,
oe, you really need to excuse foxfyre, she's sensitive.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:26 pm
@dyslexia,
At least I don't selectively read what is there like some do, I don't pull a single concept out of context, ignore all the qualifications attached to it, and hold it up to accuse somebody. I don't pretend that the proper context doesn't exist. But then some don't grasp that concept all that well. I do make allowances for the ideologically challenged.
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
You're a bit ideological yourself Foxy.

I gave you three or four economic facts to support your case. And you don't want to know. You just want to argue about which way one should argue starting out with the dogma that Big O is a bum. Which he's not.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:02 pm
@spendius,
interesting, a few evenings ago I was in a discussion with a well-known conservative with the subject being Plato, my friend suggested that of all the people he knew of a2k; Foxfyre/BumbleBee/Bernie and Tico were the most strident of the Platonists. I could offer no counter argument. I suppose Spendi would fall closer to Aristotle's acorn.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:09 pm
As GM goes, so goes the nation, wasn't that the "spirit" of the Eisenhower administration?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:14 pm
@dyslexia,
It is considered a status symbol dys to burn banknotes on the fire. It's a grande version of lighting a cigar with a $20 bill.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:10 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

...lighting a cigar with a $20 bill.


that's what got us where we are today.

all hail der gekko!

  http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/gordon_gekko.jpg

"GREED IS GOOD"

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 08:02:40