[speechlesstx]

Children!!!

Let's not get into "lipstick on a pig".

That's why I used "greased," it's more southern than lipstick.

[Skell]

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

[tomder55]

You don't get it . It is government interference in business that we fundamentally object to. All socialism (ooops I mean progressivism ) really is ,is mercantilism reincarnate [that theory that the government knows best how to manage the economy and the allocation of resources;that industry should be organized by the state].

They are two heads of the same coin .Both have in common dislike for market solutions.Collectivism in all it's manifestations leads logically and inevitably to tyranny.(The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek)

[speechlesstx]

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

That's the great thing about DVR's, you an watch a whole Nascar race in less than an hour. Scan to the crashes then watch the last 20 laps and you haven't missed a thing. :D

But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

What tom said and then some. I don't like tyranny, and for the folks that think Bush was a tyrant... they ain't seen nothing yet. This crowd in charge will put Bush to shame if we don't set a different course.

[excon]

You don't get it . It is government interference in business that we fundamentally object to.

Hello again, tom:

You didn't fundamentally object when the dufus interfered into business, did you?? No, you didn't. Could that be because you LIKED the interference HE did, but you're not too thrilled with the interference Obama is doing??

I think it could be.

excon

[tomder55]

I certainly did not object when President Bush cut business taxes or directed policies that encouraged private business ownership . Did he micromanage these businesses ,no he did not . Was he in favor of free trade ? Yes he was.

[excon]

I certainly did not object when President Bush cut business taxes or directed policies that encouraged private business ownership . Did he micromanage these businesses ,no he did not . Was he in favor of free trade ? Yes he was.

Hello again, tom:

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off. That ISN'T an UNFETTERED marketplace. That ISN'T conservative economics. That's fiddling around so your friends can get wealthy. That's tilting the playing field in THEIR favor. In fact, his friends looted SOOO much, that we're left holding the bag. It needs tilting back.

Yes, it's a shame that the dufus broke it SOOOOO badly, that a HANDS ON repair is needed.

excon

[ETWolverine]

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

Skell,

You seem to forget that most of us "righty's" (sic) complained when the government got involved in business long before Obama came to the White House. We were against it then, and we're against it now. Always have been, always will be.

The fact that government has done it before (albeit to a lessor degree) doesn't make it right.

By what Constitutional authority or legal precedent does the President of the United States have the authority to fire the CEO of a private corporation and/or appoint the members of its Board of Directors? This is way past the government being involved in regulation for safety or for the public good. This is direct control of a major private business interest. What about the rights of the shareholders to appoint the members of the Board or to make decisions about the company's management? What about their rights as owners? Please keep in mind that, unlike AIG, GM has not given any stock to the US government in exchange for government funds, which means that the stockholders of GM are still its owners and controllers. With the President firing GM's CEO, he is running roughshod over the rights of the shareholders.

Also keep in mind that Obama did this after specifically saying that the US Government has no desire or intention of taking control of GM.

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM.
---President Obama, 3/30/09

His actions most definitely do not match his words. The US Government is not only dictating regulation to GM, it has taken control of its corporate management, and has publicly pledged to guarantee its service agreements.

It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe.

In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
--- President Obama, 3/30/09

The government has no business backing up the service agreements of GM or any other private-sector company. They have no business getting involved in the management of private-sector businesses. They have no business firing CEOs or hiring members of the Board of Directors.

Conservatives were against government intervention when it was much less intrusive, albeit widespread. We're even more against it now.

This is exactly what I and other Conservatives warned was going to occur if the government bailed out these companies... massive government intervention and control.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off.

You guys have followed Obama and the Dem's lead on this but apparently have no clue as to the facts. I've posted this here before, that according to the Census Bureau "income inequality" (as ridiculous a term as "social justice") and poverty levels were relatively unchanged during Bush's time in office, and in fact income inequality "decreased between 2006 and 2007."

Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution declined, while the shares for the third and fourth quintiles increased. Meanwhile, the Gini index declined from 0.470 to 0.463, moving closer to 0, which represents perfect income equality (1 represents perfect inequality).

That sounds nothing like siphoning off the middle class wealth to the rich.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off. That ISN'T an UNFETTERED marketplace. That ISN'T conservative economics. That's fiddling around so your friends can get wealthy. That's tilting the playing field in THEIR favor. In fact, his friends looted SOOO much, that we're left holding the bag. It needs tilting back.

Yes, it's a shame that the dufus broke it SOOOOO badly, that a HANDS ON repair is needed.

excon

First, what companies did Bush take control of? Lowering the tax rates is NOT the same as taking control of companies or manipulating industries, which is EXACTLY what Obama is doing. Don't tell me that Bush took control of companies, because you know that's BS.

Second, if you feel that massive spending by the Bush admin, as well as manipulating the tax structure is what messed things up, then why are you cheering on a guy who is not only doing the same thing, but doing it to a degree never seen in US history? If what Bush did was wrong, then why are supporting the very same actions multiplied to the Nth degree?

Since when is creating massive budget deficits and massive debt a solution to massive inflation and massive debt?

[tomder55]

OK evidently the whole NASCAR thing was an April Fools Joke by Car and Driver Magazine. Car and Driver later pulled the fake story and apologized for "going too far". It was picked up by the media and took off.

[excon]

First, what companies did Bush take control of?

Hello again, El:

Bush? Nahhh, not him. But, why would you take over a teeny little company when you can hand your friends the keys to the treasury? Letting his Wall Street buddies take control of our economy (and that would be ALL the companies), and RIP us off like we've never been ripped off before, isn't quite what Obama is doing.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Bush?? Nahhh, not him. But, why would you take over a teeny little company when you can hand your friends the keys to the treasury? Letting his Wall Street buddies take control of our economy (and that would be ALL the companies), and RIP us off like we've never been ripped off before, isn't quite what Obama is doing.

excon

As I understand it, the words "rip off" mean "to steal".

Who on Wall Street did Bush help steal anything? Aside from actual cases of fraud, like Bernie Madoff, which Wall Street companies "ripped off" anyone, and how did Bush assist them in the "ripoff"?

You throw words around flippantly, excon, and assume that that's what took place. As far as I can tell, there was no theft by any company with which Bush is connected or with who's management Bush has a friendship. Wall Street didn't rip anyone off. They just made bad decisions. Oil companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged more money than you want them to charge. Insurance companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged more than you want them to charge. Credit Card companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged high rates. Lenders didn't rip anyone off, they just made loans to people who couldn't afford them. The term "ripped off" is a loaded term with a very specific meaning that doesn't apply to anything Bush or his supposed "cronies" did.

If you are going to use that term, then please state what act of theft took place, and how did Bush participate in it?

Just because something is unfair in your perception doesn't make it theft. Nor does it make it illegal... or even wrong.

Unlike Bush, Obama actually is breaking the law and committing Unconstitutional acts vis-à-vis GM.

Elliot

[galveston]

Sometimes I wonder if Ex is playing devils advocate just to irritate us?

Nahhh! Couldn't be.

[twinkiedooter]

If he asked the GM "big boss" to resign, just why on earth didn't he ask the "big boss" of AIG to do the same? It would have halted a heck of a lot of money being bled out of the system. But then I guess Rahm would have gotten mad that he didn't have his palm greased with lots of moolah like he did. We are not going to see any big wigs of Wall Street deposed in any big hurry either.

[tomder55]

Not sure of that Biz~tzar Geithner is capable of anything .

[speechlesstx]

Geithner can send both the markets and the dollar on a tumble, but he can't run Turbotax, can't tell the truth and apparently can't count. Heckuva job, Timmy.

[inthebox]

I am curious as to what fans of government take over of private companies expect governemnt to do with GM and Chrysler?

What kind of cars will the government manufacture?

Think of all the major automakers: Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, VW, Mazda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Peugeot, Fiat...

Are any of them government owned?

Do any of you drive a government made car like a Lada, a Skoda, Trabant?

Can they compete in a free market?

Why would you think a government made car could succeed, without taxpayor subsidy, in today's market?

What about innovation?
Are what we take for granted ; anti-lock brakes, fuel injections, turbos, disc brakes, stability control, 4 wheel drive - are any of these invented or designed by some government bereaucrat?


Top Gear-Communist cars- Video

Check out the 5 minute mark in which A DOG was quicker than the Communist cars :D






G&P

[excon]

What kind of cars will the government manufacture?

Hello in:

They can't do worse than GM... Remember the Nova? Know what it means in Spanish? Won't go.

excon

[galveston]

Hello in:

They can't do worse than GM... Remember the Nova? Know what it means in Spanish? Won't go.

excon

Sure they can do worse than GM! Several worse are named above. Even the notorious Corvair wasn't too bad once GM installed a stabilizer bar. One thing a government dictated auto will NEVER be is innovative. You can't say that about GM.

PS: I don't own a GM auto. I have in the past though.