Settle down Stebo, you're going to have a stroke if you don't.

I'd call the US a Presidential Republic. We also have a democracy in that the right to vote isn't dependent on status or wealth. It's a little of many things.

telcoman wrote:You need to calm down and take your meds.

Facts sting, huh?

Have someone smart read my last post to you. When you're ready to dispute the case based on its merits, let me know.

bigbadberry3 wrote:You start off saying Chrysler wouldn't have gone under and finish with Chrysler should have gone under. Missing the sarcasm button maybe?

Nope. They wouldn't have, but should have.

Their products were, and have been, dismal... for decades.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Can you launch this furor at other companies that receive corporate tax breaks please

Nope. Those aren't run-of-the-mill corporate tax breaks. It was special treatment, extended to a couple companies, that other companies didn't have access to. It was, to put it simply, disparate treatment. And it was quite possibly illegal - and sanctioned by the White House.

Remember that next time some dim bulb praises the "salvation" brought forth by BO.

telcoman wrote:Elected officals that do not understand compromise will be voted out of office

Kinda like BO's quote on Obamacare: "It's here to stay", right?

Or maybe the insistence on bailing out the US automakers, against intelligent and well-informed opposition from economic minds who said it was a bad idea?

Yeah - there's no "compromise" in BO's dictatorship.

Howie's "credibility" has been clobbered over the head with facts, statistics, and valid points so many times, even his fellow Libtards walk away shaking their heads.

p.s. BO didn't "save" GM. At least not legally, and not in a way that benefitted America. A restructuring would have had the same effect, wouldn't have violated Federal law, and would have cost the tacpayers a hell of a lot less. But Howie prefers to defend the "fat cat" corporate powerbrokers in the Chicago Mafia. He doesn't care about the middle class, just the mouthbreathing liberal elites.

AZhitman wrote:Howie prefers to defend the "fat cat" corporate powerbrokers in the Chicago Mafia. He doesn't care about the middle class, just the mouthbreathing liberal elites.

careful before you too get the "conspiracy theory" name tag too, like i did.

bigbadberry3 wrote:

all i said was "Obama simply wanted to secure & thank a giant voting block right from the head start" - and ended up getting this afterwards. like politicians (from both sides) dont "thank" voting blocks, nor give out "favors" to their special interest groups

AZhitman wrote:

bigbadberry3 wrote:You start off saying Chrysler wouldn't have gone under and finish with Chrysler should have gone under. Missing the sarcasm button maybe?

Nope. They wouldn't have, but should have.

Their products were, and have been, dismal... for decades.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Can you launch this furor at other companies that receive corporate tax breaks please

Nope. Those aren't run-of-the-mill corporate tax breaks. It was special treatment, extended to a couple companies, that other companies didn't have access to. It was, to put it simply, disparate treatment. And it was quite possibly illegal - and sanctioned by the White House.

Remember that next time some dim bulb praises the "salvation" brought forth by BO.

How about those special subsidies companies get?

We're talking about GM, remember?

Fight that battle, sure - I don't disagree - but we're talking about one company.

BBB, I'm with you on subsidies. As a conservative, I often rail against welfare, but conservatives also have to realize that subsidies are also a very real form of welfare. When the government decides to subsidize, yes it may have very compelling reasons, but its none the less a manipulation of the free market. The only place where I am in a bit of a boggle on subsidies is farm subsidies, and only because it seems without them, farmers might have a bit of a quarrel with producing enough food for our glutton of a country. But when you stop and thing about it, farm subsidies are sort of a backend form of welfare, they take our tax dollars (those who actually pay taxes) and use them to artifically lower the cost of food production. This really boils down to redistribution of wealth. The tax dollars of the wealthy are used to subsidize food production, so that those who dont pay taxes can benefit. Without the subsidies, the wealthy could take the subsidy component of their tax and use it to bolster their budget to buy the more expensive food, but what would the poor do when they were paying no tax in anyway? Still, Im convinced that the free market could develop ways to improve farming, lower costs, but theres no incentive to do so, since the subsidies are there, and to rip them away now might prove to be dangerous. However, HOWEVER, I do have a huge problem with the fact that we subsidize corn production for the production of ethanol. Corn ethanol is a breakeven technology, and if production efficiency dwindles, it becomes a net loss, because even at peak efficiency, the amount of energy required to produce it is only breaking even with the amount of energy it yields. Now sugar cane ethanol is another story, but corn, thats the biggest sinkhole for subsidy money. The government should just completely exit the market system, save health and safety regulation and oversight. But even there, corruption manipulates the market. An example:

I work in the propane industry. The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) regulates this industry, with Pamphlet 58, which is the code book regarding propane system. We are currently battling some new regulation that has ZERO basis in safety, and 100% basis in market manipulation. The regulation in question would require all connection fittings to be both branded by vendor, and marked for UL listing. This was initiated by ONE manufacturer of corrugated stainless tubing and connections, because upon inception of their production line, they set up to brand their fittings this way. Upon noticing that the next to ZERO of the competition does this, they put the pressure on, and snuck the regulation in through committee nonsense, that no one was paying attention to, and it stuck. Now was that a failure of committee? Sure, but the source of the regulation was market manipulation, it had ZERO to do with safety. That sort of nonsense is what has NO place occurring.

Long and short? Yes Im against subsidies, just as Im against government directly influencing the market, by streching and manipulating law to save certain players, REGARDLESS of how big they are. In my opinion, there is no such thing as TOO BIG TO FAIL. Not a car company, not a bank, not a foreign country. Theres always someone or someone(s) just itching for a big player to fail and get out of the way so they can have their chance. They shouldnt be able to use the government to break down the big player, but the big player should not be protected by the government either. Move out of the way and let the market work. If something isnt safe or healthy (really no trumped up) then the government has a say, otherwise stay out!

Well said stebo.

Brilliantly-said.

Here's the deal - ANYTHING we cut out (programmatically) is going to negatively impact a sub-group. However, as those of you who believe so strongly in Darwinism will attest, you can't (and shouldn't) save everyone, because Natural Selection is very real.

Some farmers will have to adapt. Some may have to sell their land and learn to be IT specialists, nurses, tractor mechanics or internet forum owners ( ). Some will refuse. Some might starve. But it's for the greater good. And honestly, knowing more and more about farm subsidies (look up the Monsanto Act, I believe it's called), I'd be amazed that ANY party would support the continuation of taxpayer money subsidizing the production of compounds that negatively impact the health of millions of Americans (thereby overburdening and already-strapped healthcare system).

See, if we cut out a subsidy, we lessen healthcare costs. It's never black and white, but one must choose. And if one thinks Obamacare is brilliant, then logic dictates that they'd oppose certain subsidies. It's unavoidable - but inconvenient for those who have hung their hat on a particular ideology.

Chew on that for a while, and remember - You CAN NOT have it both ways.