Lifestyle > Train of Thought
So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
TraceOneInfinite:
Since when does the president have the right to basically have the CEO of a company fired, and then start dictating to them what kind of products they should be allowed to make, and bail them out of their bad debt using tax payers money?
This is bad in so many ways. The premise of Obama's whole argument for doing it is very threatening to this nation. How can anyone deny that it is socialism?
GM had already been making small economy and fuel efficient cars. It was just that nobody had been buying them. People wanted to buy the big SUV's. So how is it GM's fault that people wouldn't buy the clean energy fuel efficient cars from them and instead they wanted to the big SUV's? How is that GM's fault?
GM was already in business to make money. Every business is in it for their own survival. They do their best to turn a profit, or otherwise they fail. So if they were already doing everything they could to turn a profit, then how is having Barack Obama oversee and run their company going to make them any more successful?
The government created many of these problems in the first place. They had already been making demands upon the industry about what kind of cars they should biuld, demanding seatbelts, airbags, etc... safety regulations... Did you know death by car accidents actually increased after government forced them to produce cars with seatbelts?
...Then the big and most important question that none of these idiots in the media are asking, is did we elect Obama to be CEO in Chief? Is that the presidents responsibility as outlined in the Constitution to dictate how our businesses should be ran, and what is most profitable for them, controlling their finances and production? Then choosing which businesses to let fail, and which businesses to bail out, at the expense of the American people? This is socialism, no doubt.
I TO DA GEEZY:
Even though I am not going into the economic aspects of it-I am by no means an expert in the field- there are two separate questions of principle here. 1) How is tax payer money used 2) Does an elected representative of the public have the right to oversee, and intervene in ,economic life.
Now, surely, what to do with tax payer money, as a matter of principle, is for the public to decide. True, the American system is largely based on keeping the public in the darkness while public funds are channeled into high-tech development, with profits later privatized. If you're against the misuse of public funds- and given your "since when" question-the high-tech sector is where you should direct your attention, since this is clearly an instance of government stepping out of line, and betraying it's accountability to the public.
A totally separate issue is whether an elected representative, in a democratic country, should be able to intervene in the economy on behalf of the public. Whether or not Obama is actually doing what is in the public interest in this particular case is an open question. However, I do not see how a person who believes in democracy- forget "socialism" -can doubt, in principle, the legitimacy of an elected representative intervening in the economy on behalf of the public, when ,say, destructive trends need to be mitigated.
Suga Foot:
The American tax payers are now a huge (major?) shareholder of GM. Obama, being the tax payers representative, now has the power to fire the CEO.
And it's not the size of the cars that led GM to fail, it's because GM makes shitty cars.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 02, 2009, 08:51:27 AM ---
A totally separate issue is whether an elected representative, in a democratic country, should be able to intervene in the economy on behalf of the public. Whether or not Obama is actually doing what is in the public interest in this particular case is an open question. However, I do not see how a person who believes in democracy- forget "socialism" -can doubt, in principle, the legitimacy of an elected representative intervening in the economy on behalf of the public, when ,say, destructive trends need to be mitigated.
--- End quote ---
Because America is a Republic not a democracy. Also, according to the constitution, an individual has the rights to ownership of what he produces, NOT the government. Therefore, the owner of GM bares the responsibility of his businesses success or failure, and Barack Obama has no rights to infringe upon a private corporation, niether for it's benefit nor for it's detriment. The founding fathers were totally against this sort of thing.
...By the way I-Geezy, you are a well-known socialist like your God Noam Chomsky, so you falsely imagine a "good and righteous" (which has never really existed for any long-term period) government that can supposedly make the economy do what it's supposed to do (which is also impossible because one can not control the market).
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: Adon on April 02, 2009, 08:57:10 AM ---The American tax payers are now a huge (major?) shareholder of GM. Obama, being the tax payers representative, now has the power to fire the CEO.
And it's not the size of the cars that led GM to fail, it's because GM makes shitty cars.
--- End quote ---
No, that is not correct. Previously, one had the option to buy or not buy shares in GM. Which is a right of the individual to buy or not buy. Now Obama has basically forced every American to buy shares in GM, by way of bailing them out. This is a great corruption of presidential power.
....by the way, I would rather have Obama abusing government powers than Bush, but that is another discussion entirely.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version