• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LIMBAUGH: GM Must DIE!

Sure he does, most liberals are stupid like that. They actually think that tax dollars grow on trees, that's why they think no one gets hurt when taxes are raised.

No, not at all. I think we all agree, that when taxes are raised, the national deficit of however many trillions of dollars ( from the Shrub) gets hurt very bad. And honestly, people who are going to be getting increased taxes, if they can't keep going on a $100,000 income are just plain stupid with money.

For example, I have a teacher, who makes $60,000 a year. His wife also makes that much per year. And he says he can't afford more taxes. Not trying to criticise him, but he waits a lot of money on fishing. If for one year, he didn't go fishing, spending money on bait, tackle, rods, fuel for the boat, etc. he would be in great shape.
 
Not all of them. Just the ones that apparently don't know how to run a business. If I own a business and **** it up, you think the government is going to come bail my ass out? **** no, they're not. And they shouldn't for anyone else either.

Do you have any understanding of economics? Imagine this: AIG failed. What would have happened? Well, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley Smith Baker, and a whole lot of other financial sector companies would have taken a beating, and probably collapsed had AIG gone down. GM Failed: The automotive industry would take years to recover, and during the time it is recovering, we would be buying tons and tons of foreign made cars. That in turn would increase the Japanese and European monopoly over our automotive industry. Basically, if either failed outright, and filed chapter 11 without government interference, our economy would not just be hurt, it would be devastated. Got it?

A company fails and another one comes along and sweeps up its market share, creating more stable jobs in the process.

Such as? A foreign company? Japanese maybe? What happens when our companies fail, is other people across seas come and buy it out, and take it over. And those jobs would then be created in whatever country across the sea. Maybe you don't understand this, but whenever a U.S. company fails, it's usually a bad sign. That in and of itself hurts the stock market, the commodity market (depending on the company involved), and sometimes ( if it's a service industry) hurts retail prices.

While AIG could not fail, Obama did mess it up. We should have stepped in (despite pressure from Republicans not to) and forcibly removed all of the executives, without severance, and without their ginormous pension plans, and then restructured the entire company ourselves. That way, the U.S. government would have stopped the problem at it's core: greedy execs.

Companies should be allowed to succeed and fail on their own merit. They should not be babied and artificially held up by our government. The government should NOT be that involved in private businesses. Otherwise, they are no longer private businesses and are now government business. I refuse to support government businesses.

Support whatever you want, but what helps and hurts the economy is defined. A market giant collapsing hurts us. One of the Big Three collapsing is a bad thing. We should allow them to not fail, not necessarily be nationalized, but put down very gently, putting all of the assets towards making the employee's happy, not the employers. Maybe if the Senate or House presented legislation stating that companies filing chapter 11 cannot pay executives until everyone else has been satisfied...but then lobbyists will block that vote...oh well.
 
For example, I have a teacher, who makes $60,000 a year. His wife also makes that much per year. And he says he can't afford more taxes. Not trying to criticise him, but he waits a lot of money on fishing. If for one year, he didn't go fishing, spending money on bait, tackle, rods, fuel for the boat, etc. he would be in great shape.

What he does with his hard earned money teaching snotty kids is no business of yours or anyone else's.

Yeah, this guy should stop enjoying fishing for a year so he can spread his hard earned money around to deadbeats. :roll:
 
Do you have any understanding of economics? Imagine this: AIG failed. What would have happened? Well, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley Smith Baker, and a whole lot of other financial sector companies would have taken a beating, and probably collapsed had AIG gone down. GM Failed: The automotive industry would take years to recover, and during the time it is recovering, we would be buying tons and tons of foreign made cars. That in turn would increase the Japanese and European monopoly over our automotive industry. Basically, if either failed outright, and filed chapter 11 without government interference, our economy would not just be hurt, it would be devastated. Got it?



Such as? A foreign company? Japanese maybe? What happens when our companies fail, is other people across seas come and buy it out, and take it over. And those jobs would then be created in whatever country across the sea. Maybe you don't understand this, but whenever a U.S. company fails, it's usually a bad sign. That in and of itself hurts the stock market, the commodity market (depending on the company involved), and sometimes ( if it's a service industry) hurts retail prices.

While AIG could not fail, Obama did mess it up. We should have stepped in (despite pressure from Republicans not to) and forcibly removed all of the executives, without severance, and without their ginormous pension plans, and then restructured the entire company ourselves. That way, the U.S. government would have stopped the problem at it's core: greedy execs.



Support whatever you want, but what helps and hurts the economy is defined. A market giant collapsing hurts us. One of the Big Three collapsing is a bad thing. We should allow them to not fail, not necessarily be nationalized, but put down very gently, putting all of the assets towards making the employee's happy, not the employers. Maybe if the Senate or House presented legislation stating that companies filing chapter 11 cannot pay executives until everyone else has been satisfied...but then lobbyists will block that vote...oh well.

So we should reward companies and executives for doing a crappy job? No. We should not. Those companies should just declare bankruptcy and restructure, sell, whatever works. THAT is the free market. THAT is how a market gets better. You don't reward failure with billions of dollars. That only encourages more failure.

Why don't we take a lesson from the Steel industry, eh?

The steel industry was beginning its long stumble when it turned to Washington for help in the late 1970s. The Carter administration responded by committing $300 million in loan guarantees to five struggling companies. Nearly a third of the funds went to help Wisconsin Steel, a Chicago outfit that had been around since the previous century.

Thanks to a strike at a key customer, Wisconsin Steel promptly went under. The company locked its gates one winter day without even bothering to notify its 3,000 employees that their wages were history. So was most of the government’s money.

Despite this fiasco, Jimmy Carter’s successors tried to deliver on demands for relief. In 1984, Ronald Reagan imposed import quotas to stem the tide of cheap foreign steel. In 1999, Bill Clinton guaranteed $1 billion in loans to beleaguered producers, and the following year imposed punitive tariffs on some imports.

It was never enough, particularly after the rise of low-cost minimills. By late 2001, their industry reeling, the steel makers wanted more from Washington: further protection from imports; pressure on other countries to reduce their steel-making capacity; and billions of taxpayer dollars to relieve the burden of their employees’ retirement costs.

They got a temporary tariff from President Bush, but not much more. And so the steel industry — what was left of it — shuddered and collapsed.

Bethlehem Steel, whose steel was used in the Hoover Dam, the Chrysler building and the George Washington Bridge, filed for bankruptcy in October 2001. It was followed by National Steel, Weirton Steel, Georgetown Steel and many others. The pain was great.

And necessary, some say. “If the steel companies had gotten all they wanted in terms of loan guarantees and import quotas, they would never have gotten better,” said Richard Fruehan, director of the Sloan Study on Competitiveness in the Steel Industry. “The bankruptcies forced their hand.”

Over the decades the companies had shed employees to stay afloat. Soon retirees greatly outnumbered the actual workers. At Bethlehem, the ratio was six retirees for every worker. All these retirees had good pensions and good health care plans, which they thought were guaranteed. But these costs were a tremendous weight on the companies.

Bankruptcy changed the rules, allowing the steel makers to unload billions of dollars in pension obligations onto the government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and to cut more than 200,000 workers from their supposedly guaranteed medical care.

The failures also allowed for the renegotiation of labor contracts, something Wilbur L. Ross Jr., a specialist in distressed assets, realized when he began looking at the moribund industry. The only bidder for the bankrupt LTV Steel, he proceeded to buy Bethlehem and other old-line companies, putting them together as International Steel Group. He cut more employees and revamped work rules, taking Bethlehem, for example, from eight layers of management to three.

Steel’s turn-around was dramatic. The 17 leading companies went from a combined loss of $1.1 billion in 2003 to an after-tax profit of $6.6 billion in 2004, according to an analysis done for an industry trade group. Ross sold International Steel to the Indian entrepreneur Lakshmi Mittal for $4.5 billion in 2005, earning a tremendous return.

Thanks to all of steel’s tribulations and consolidations — and, no doubt, a world economy that was booming until recently — the industry is relatively healthy.
 
What he does with his hard earned money teaching snotty kids is no business of yours or anyone else's.

Yeah, this guy should stop enjoying fishing for a year so he can spread his hard earned money around to deadbeats. :roll:

Well, when he brought it up in a debate I was having with him about taxes, when he brought it up, so essentially he amde it partially my business, at least in that debate.

Well, even a month of conservation of funds ( and he's a conservative) would help him phenomenally. And are you the deadbeat? ;)
 
So we should reward companies and executives for doing a crappy job? No. We should not. Those companies should just declare bankruptcy and restructure, sell, whatever works. THAT is the free market. THAT is how a market gets better. You don't reward failure with billions of dollars. That only encourages more failure.

Why don't we take a lesson from the Steel industry, eh?

What we should do is not reward executives, who caused the crappy jobs in the first place. What we should do, is take the company, give them money to keep going, kick out all the a**holes, and then restructure. A mix between what you want, and what Obama did. Give money, and use that as leverage for forced restructure. Absolutism never works, free market, state market. Democracy, Communism...too many people are either one way or the other, and are too damn absolute. As history has shown sooo many times, it never works. And it's not meant to be a reward, it should be used as leverage inside a company.
 
What we should do is not reward executives, who caused the crappy jobs in the first place. What we should do, is take the company, give them money to keep going, kick out all the a**holes, and then restructure. A mix between what you want, and what Obama did. Give money, and use that as leverage for forced restructure. Absolutism never works, free market, state market. Democracy, Communism...too many people are either one way or the other, and are too damn absolute. As history has shown sooo many times, it never works. And it's not meant to be a reward, it should be used as leverage inside a company.

Ummm, all those things that you want to happen to a bad company? They happen when a company has a bad business model and it fails. As it should. We are, or at least have been until now, a capitalist nation.

The government should NEVER have leverage within a private business. Never.
 
Ummm, all those things that you want to happen to a bad company? They happen when a company has a bad business model and it fails. As it should. We are, or at least have been until now, a capitalist nation.

The government should NEVER have leverage within a private business. Never.

You're saying the polar opposite of what happened right? Well, the problem is, AIG was connected with our entire financial sector, so before we can let them fail, we need to have the leverage to take away that network, take away their importance in our market, kick out the a**holes at the top, and then take all remaining assets and give them to the suffering employees.

For arguement's sake, had we allowed AIG to just collapse, we would be looking at a significantly higher unemployement rate. We would have a triple digit ( XXX) DOW number, and we would have opened the door to much more collapse, and suffering. Had we allowed GM to collapse, along with Chrysler, who only survived because we forced them to combine with Fiat, then our automotive manufacturing capabilites would be so impaired, our country would buy nothing but foreign cars. That would give money to foreign companies which would help their economy, and hurt ours. The loss in car making factories would take away thuosands of jobs, as well as all those dealerships, would have taken 300,000 jobs away from just Chrysler. The loss in cars would also hurt our GDP, and GNP.
 
You're saying the polar opposite of what happened right? Well, the problem is, AIG was connected with our entire financial sector, so before we can let them fail, we need to have the leverage to take away that network, take away their importance in our market, kick out the a**holes at the top, and then take all remaining assets and give them to the suffering employees.

For arguement's sake, had we allowed AIG to just collapse, we would be looking at a significantly higher unemployement rate. We would have a triple digit ( XXX) DOW number, and we would have opened the door to much more collapse, and suffering. Had we allowed GM to collapse, along with Chrysler, who only survived because we forced them to combine with Fiat, then our automotive manufacturing capabilites would be so impaired, our country would buy nothing but foreign cars. That would give money to foreign companies which would help their economy, and hurt ours. The loss in car making factories would take away thuosands of jobs, as well as all those dealerships, would have taken 300,000 jobs away from just Chrysler. The loss in cars would also hurt our GDP, and GNP.

So we're back to subsidizing the horse and carriage again. That makes sense. :roll:
 
So we're back to subsidizing the horse and carriage again. That makes sense. :roll:

Are you aware of the affect subsidizing has on our economy? Crops, for instance, such as corn are reliant on subsidies. Without them, the farmers would actually be turning into the red...

And what I am saying is to take down AIG in a controlled manner, through the leverage of bailout money. IF you can think of another leverage over them that would work, tell me.
 
Well, when he brought it up in a debate I was having with him about taxes, when he brought it up, so essentially he amde it partially my business, at least in that debate.

Well, even a month of conservation of funds ( and he's a conservative) would help him phenomenally. And are you the deadbeat? ;)

It's still not your business.

And BTW, I've paid more in taxes in the last 10 years than you will likely make in your first 10 years out of school. I'll spend my money any way I please. :2wave:
 
It's still not your business.

And BTW, I've paid more in taxes in the last 10 years than you will likely make in your first 10 years out of school. I'll spend my money any way I please. :2wave:

When it is going to topple the American economy, sometimes we have to make it our business. And your attitude is exactly that of a declining "empire."

I'd bet you not. How much in taxes?
 
Are you aware of the affect subsidizing has on our economy? Crops, for instance, such as corn are reliant on subsidies. Without them, the farmers would actually be turning into the red...

And what I am saying is to take down AIG in a controlled manner, through the leverage of bailout money. IF you can think of another leverage over them that would work, tell me.

You assume I think there should be leverage over them at all. I don't. I think if they fail, we suffer the repercussions for a while and rebuild. It happened to Japan with their banking industry and they seem to be doing ok...
 
You assume I think there should be leverage over them at all. I don't. I think if they fail, we suffer the repercussions for a while and rebuild. It happened to Japan with their banking industry and they seem to be doing ok...

The difference is their culture. They are a working culture. From what I've seen around where I live, and most of California, we are a declining working culture, coupled with a uncaring culture.

If we failed AIG, Gm, Chrysler, and all their associates, it would take say...20+ years to come anywhere close to where we are now. That's a light estimate. That would make it a Greater Depression, for sure.
 
The difference is their culture. They are a working culture. From what I've seen around where I live, and most of California, we are a declining working culture, coupled with a uncaring culture.

If we failed AIG, Gm, Chrysler, and all their associates, it would take say...20+ years to come anywhere close to where we are now. That's a light estimate. That would make it a Greater Depression, for sure.

A depression has a way of changing a culture to a working culture. I am not buying the idea that another great depression would be such a bad thing. Also, you forget that part of what made the great depression so unbearable was that the midwest dried up, killing food production. That doesn't seem to be a problem this go around.
 
A depression has a way of changing a culture to a working culture. I am not buying the idea that another great depression would be such a bad thing. Also, you forget that part of what made the great depression so unbearable was that the midwest dried up, killing food production. That doesn't seem to be a problem this go around.

Well, the financial sector has dried up, as well as the automotive industry. And I personally don't want to bet the economic future of the world, and it's inhabitants on a cultural trend...
 
Well, the financial sector has dried up, as well as the automotive industry. And I personally don't want to bet the economic future of the world, and it's inhabitants on a cultural trend...

As you get older and have a little experience under your belt, you will learn not to buy into the hype that these things are the end of the world.
 
As you get older and have a little experience under your belt, you will learn not to buy into the hype that these things are the end of the world.

No, thats not until 2012. Until then, it would only be hell. For me, a totally screwed up economy would be the best thing for me. More people would be in a vacuum, and something would have to fill that vacuum.
 
It actually comes out quite well when I speak it. I also try to add emotion to make it real.

Emotion is not Denotated by commas.

Go ahead and argue that all you want, his grades at Yale, and conduct as President completely countermand your point. Personaly attacks? Your conduct as almost os shameful as Bush's, you must be proud.

I am not attacking your personality, I am using your own logic to make a point. As you will later say, there is a distinct difference. Once again, the mere fact that he was elected president and accepted to Yale belies a greater intelligence than you give him credit for.

Who pays poor people? The companies they work for, not the rich people. There is a distinct difference. The companies have more funds, and are legally binded to pay the poor people, whereas the rich people just go around and blow their tax cuts on fancy cars, nice homes, and etc. If you're talking about rich people using poor people as maids, and butlers, I can almost see where you're coming from, but that number is still negligible.

I hate to break it to you but the rich people OWN the companies, the companies are THEIR property, therefore any money made, lost, OR distributed by the company comes ultimately from them.
 
Emotion is not Denotated by commas.



I am not attacking your personality, I am using your own logic to make a point. As you will later say, there is a distinct difference. Once again, the mere fact that he was elected president and accepted to Yale belies a greater intelligence than you give him credit for.



I hate to break it to you but the rich people OWN the companies, the companies are THEIR property, therefore any money made, lost, OR distributed by the company comes ultimately from them.

Once again, I type the way I would speak.

He got into Yale because his Father pulled a lot of strings. As much as I don't want to use this as a source, the movie "W" actually does good to describe his life. As the movie also says, he got into Harvard for the same reason.

Not all CEO's own the company. Not all executives own the company either.
 
Do you honestly believe that Harvard or Yale accepts people simply because Daddy has money? They recieve tens of thousands of applications per year and they only accept close to a thousand students. Do you think that they only take the rich ones? They are the most selective schools in the nation! Now Bush may have recieved scholarships because of his father, but Harvard and Yale can take plenty of famous alumnis' children, they don't have to take anyone who is not intelligent. Why do liberals have such a hard time admiting that Bush wasn't stupid even if they disagree with him? I disagree with most everything Barrack Obama does, but I don't think he is stupid. I know Bush was not the best at PR to put it lightly, but be fair. He led our country admirably through a time of crisis. When we could have fallen apart he kept us united. That deserves at least some respect, even if you disagree with what he did afterwards. You may claim he ran on fear and manipulation, but GW was originally elected in 2000 by running on social issues and he can hardly be critisized for focusing on the WOT in 2004. It was pretty much the only main national issue. Most domestic issues were secondary at the time. The economy is hardly controlled by the president. Yes, some more regulation could have been passed, but nearly no one saw this coming and it was not the result of any direct action or inaction on Bush's part. He had a war to run and a bitterly divided country to contend with, he deserves some credit for what he did accomplish.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I type the way I would speak.

He got into Yale because his Father pulled a lot of strings. As much as I don't want to use this as a source, the movie "W" actually does good to describe his life. As the movie also says, he got into Harvard for the same reason.

Not all CEO's own the company. Not all executives own the company either.

We're going to point to a movie as a historically accurate biography? A movie by Oliver Stone?
 
No, not at all. I think we all agree, that when taxes are raised, the national deficit of however many trillions of dollars ( from the Shrub) gets hurt very bad. And honestly, people who are going to be getting increased taxes, if they can't keep going on a $100,000 income are just plain stupid with money.

For example, I have a teacher, who makes $60,000 a year. His wife also makes that much per year. And he says he can't afford more taxes. Not trying to criticise him, but he waits a lot of money on fishing. If for one year, he didn't go fishing, spending money on bait, tackle, rods, fuel for the boat, etc. he would be in great shape.

What the hell? Who are you to determine how much someone can make and what they should do with their money?

To him, going fishing isnt a waste of money. Lets find out what your hobbies are, so we can ban them. **** man. Is his fishing harming or restraining you from living a free life?

Why are you so concerned about what other people are making? If you spent less time worrying about what John Doe makes, and more about your own life, you wouldnt have time to consider what John Doe makes.

I swear, the total contempt for people who make more then they do, is getting to a point of sheer lunacy.
 
Its just par for the course that Limbaugh hopes that America fail.

This is your voice GOP.....do you agree?

Correction to your false rhetoric; Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama to fail; specifically his political policies.

Funny how when Bush was in charge so many Liberals wanted him to fail and back then it was "patriotic." They were so desperate for Bush's failure that they declared Iraq lost and the surge strategy LOST before it was even implemented.

Got hypocrisy?
 
Correction to your false rhetoric; Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama to fail; specifically his political policies.

Funny how when Bush was in charge so many Liberals wanted him to fail and back then it was "patriotic." They were so desperate for Bush's failure that they declared Iraq lost and the surge strategy LOST before it was even implemented.

Got hypocrisy?

Agreed, but both sides of the political aisle are similarly hypocritical. Back then I remember being accused of being unpatriotic by many Conservatives for criticizing President Bush and many of them now are criticizing Obama in similar ways. Unfortunately, partisan people in general seem to care more about their political party than anything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom